DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-24 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11832062 (US Application No. 18221436). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the present application are anticipated by the scope of the claims in the patent as shown for example in the table below.
18950324
Patent No. 11832062
1. A hearing aid comprising: a user input device; neural network circuitry configured to perform neural network-based real-time separation of speech and noise in an input audio signal by generating in real-time a mask that is applied to the input audio signal; and control circuitry configured to: detect user activation of the user input device; and control, based on the detection of the user activation of the user input device, switching between enabling and disabling of the neural network-based real-time separation of the speech and the noise in the input audio signal by the neural network circuitry.
1. (Currently Amended) A hearing aid system, comprising: a first hearing aid, comprising: a non-programmable first user input device that is not programmable by a user nor by an audiologist; first control circuitry configured to receive a first activation signal from the non-programmable first user input device; one or more microphones; first neural network circuitry configured to denoise audio signals received by the one or more microphones; and first communication circuitry; a second hearing aid, comprising: a second user input device; second control circuitry configured to receive a second activation signal from the second user input device; and second neural network circuitry; and a processing device in operative communication with at least one of the first hearing aid and the second hearing aid over a wireless connection; herein: the first hearing aid is configured to: detect, using the first control circuitry, user activation of the non-programmable first user input device; control, using the first control circuitry and based on the detecting of the user activation of the non-programmable first user input device on the first hearing aid, switching between enabling and disabling the first neural network circuitry; and transmit, using the first communication circuitry, an indication of the enabling or the disabling of the first neural network circuitry to the processing device; and the second hearing aid is configured to: detect, using the second control circuitry, user activation of the second user input device; and control, using the second control circuitry and based on detecting of the user activation of the second user input device, an action different from switching between enabling and disabling of the second neural network circuitry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 13-16, 21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Casper et al (US Publication No. 20240048922).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Casper teaches a hearing aid (para. 0021 lines 1-3, hearing aid) comprising: a user input device; neural network circuitry (Neural Network Engine, NNE, 150) configured to perform neural network-based real-time separation of speech and noise in an input audio signal by generating in real-time a mask (para 0053, NN model) that is applied to the input audio signal (para. 0036, front end receiver, 120); and control circuitry (controller, 130) configured to: detect user activation of the user input device (para. 0042,user input); and control, based on the detection of the user activation of the user input device, switching between enabling and disabling of the neural network-based real-time separation of the speech and the noise in the input audio signal by the neural network circuitry (para.0048, wherein the controller may selects whether to enable the NNE, 150 or DSP, 140 based on the signal to noise ratio, SNR).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Casper teaches the hearing aid of claim 1, wherein the user input device is not programmable by a wearer of the hearing aid (para. 0041-0042, wherein one or more user controlled criteria is used not requiring user input.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Casper teaches the hearing aid of claim 2, wherein the user input device is programmable by an audiologist (para 0041-0042, clinical criteria are guidelines designed for clinicians).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Casper teaches a hearing aid system, comprising: the hearing aid of claim 1; and a processing device (DSP, 140); wherein: the hearing aid is further configured to transmit to the processing device (140) an indication (155, wherein enhanced digital signal is sent) of the enabling or the disabling of the neural network-based real-time separation of the speech and the noise in the input audio signal.
Regarding claims 13 and 24, Casper teaches the hearing aid of claim 1, wherein the user input device comprises a push button (0042, anticipated by a smartphone), a dial, a rocker switch, a slider switch, a touch-sensitive area, or a microphone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casper.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Casper fails to teach the hearing aid of claim 1, wherein the neural network circuitry is implemented on a single chip in the hearing aid.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known to create electronic circuitry on a single chip to save space.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to create circuitry with components on an single chip since Applicant's has not disclosed that having the parts solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the single chips configuration in the Casper invention [In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-8, 11-12, 17-19, 23 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLESHA DABNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday and Friday 10:30-4:30PM.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 5712727547. 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.
August 21, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights