DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment dated 11/8/2024, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the software vent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtois et al. (US 20220124443 A1) hereinafter Courtois in view of Jorgensen et al. (WO 03/034784 A1) hereinafter Jorgensen.
Regarding claim 1, Courtois teaches A hearing aid comprising (“The communication environment 100 includes hearing devices 103 (singular “hearing device 103” or multiple “hearing devices 103”) in ¶[0027]): an input unit configured to receive an audible sound and to convert the audible sound into an electronic signal representing the audible sound (“FIG. 3A is a schematic block diagram illustrating the hearing device from FIG. 1. On the left side of FIG. 3A, the microphone 265 shows that sound can be received at the hearing device 103 via the microphone 265, and the microphone 265 can convert a sound wave to a microphone signal that is fed into the filter engine 225 and/or the advanced processing unit 315” in ¶[0047]); a processing unit configured to receive the electronic signal (“The processor 235 can also include a DSP configured to modify audio signals based on hearing loss or hearing programs stored in the memory 205.” in ¶[0041]), wherein the processing unit is configured to: process the electronic signal (“The processor 235 can also include a DSP configured to modify audio signals based on hearing loss or hearing programs stored in the memory 205” in ¶[0041]) in a first path for generation of a first auditory sound (“First Processing Path in Fig. 3A); and process the electronic signal in a second path for generation of a second auditory sound (“Second Processing Path” in Fig. 3A); wherein the second path has a lower latency than the first path (“The second processing path generally has a longer delay than the first processing path due at least in part to the advanced processing unit 315 applying advanced signal processing operations” in ¶[0047]); an in-ear component having an output unit configured to output the first auditory sound and the second auditory sound (“The transducer 260 can provide an output signal. The transducer 260 can be a loudspeaker or part of a cochlear device to transmit audio signals to a cochlear implant. The output signal can be a combined output from first and second paths” in ¶[0045]); Courtois does not specifically disclose the device further comprising a physical vent extending through the in-ear component for providing fluid communication between a first side of the in-ear component and a second side of the in-ear component for providing a direct auditory sound however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Jorgensen et al. for a device to further comprise comprising a physical vent extending through the in-ear component for providing fluid communication between a first side of the in-ear component and a second side of the in-ear component for providing a direct auditory sound (See “Vent” in Fig. 1),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Courtois with the teachings of Jorgensen for the benefit of eliminating occlusion in the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Courtois with Jorgensen.
Regarding claim 2, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the second path has a latency of 0.3-0.5ms (“The first processing path in FIG. 5 can include processing operations that have short delay (e.g., less than 1 milliseconds) or medium delay (e.g., around 7 milliseconds). The second signal processing path in can include processing operations that have longer delay (e.g., greater than 1 millisecond)” in ¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the first path has a latency of 9 ms 5ms (“The first processing path in FIG. 5 can include processing operations that have short delay (e.g., less than 1 milliseconds) or medium delay (e.g., around 7 milliseconds). The second signal processing path in can include processing operations that have longer delay (e.g., greater than 1 millisecond)” in ¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the second path comprises a filter configured to control a frequency shape of the electronic signal (“the microphone 265 can convert a sound wave to a microphone signal that is fed into the filter engine 225 and/or the advanced processing unit 315. The filter engine 225 can apply basic filtering operations as disclosed in FIG. 2 such as biquadratic filtering.” in ¶[0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising a control unit (relatedness Engine 220 in Fig. 3A) configured to turn the second path on or off (in Fig. 3B when Gain is Zero it is turned off the first path and relatedness factor controls it).
Regarding claim 6, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising a control unit configured to, based on the electronic signal and/or a feedback signal, modify the second path (In Fig. 4 the value of G2 is set by and controlled by “Relatedness Engine” 220 which has the output 305 as a input signal to the controller).
Regarding claim 8, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the second path does not include a filter bank, a noise reduction system, and a hearing loss compensation system (in Fig. 3A the second path does not include Filter Engine 225).
Regarding claim 9, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the processing unit is configured to mix the first auditory sound and the second auditory sound for generation of an output sound, wherein the output unit is configured to output the output sound (Fig. 3A shows an Adder combining the signals from First and second paths and outputting them to speaker 260).
Regarding claim 10, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising the electronic signal is at least partially a digital signal (“or a combination of special purpose hardware and programmable circuitry. Especially, neural network engines might be analog or digital in nature” in ¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising the electronic signal is at least partially an analog signal (“or a combination of special purpose hardware and programmable circuitry. Especially, neural network engines might be analog or digital in nature” in ¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the second path is configured to generate the second auditory sound at frequencies of 9.5KHz and above (“In some implementations, the hearing device applies a simple processing operation such as frequency-dependent gain operation along a first path, which generally has a short delay, and a more advanced signal processing operation such as noise reduction, which generally has a longer delay, on the second path. The more advanced signal processing operation can provide a better speech intelligibility or listening experience compared to the simple signal processing operation in the first path. Yet, the more advanced signal processing operation may have an increased delay, which may provide a less positive hearing experience” in ¶[0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the first path is configured to convert the electronic signal from a time domain to a frequency domain and back to a time domain, and wherein the second path allows the electronic signal to remain in the time domain (In Fig. 4 FFT and IFFT processes are in the second Path, and time-domain filter engine in the first processing path).
Regarding claim 14, Courtois as modified by Jorgensen teaches the device of claim 1, Courtois further teaches the device further comprising wherein the first path configured to compensate for a hearing impairment of a user of the hearing aid (“The processor 235 can also include a DSP configured to modify audio signals based on hearing loss or hearing programs stored in the memory 205” in ¶[0041]).
Regarding claim 15, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the device of rejected claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time.
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.
AMMAR T. HAMID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights