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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 11/20/2024 and 12/30/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (US 20190069096 A1 – Cited IDS).
Regarding claim 16: Petersen teaches a hearing device (Fig. 3: Hearing device 1A), comprising:
at least one microphone (Fig. 3: Microphone 5A and 5B);
a receiver (Fig. 3: Receiver/speaker 6);
a user interface circuit (Fig. 3: User interface 14); and
a sound processor coupled to the at least one microphone, the receiver, and the user interface circuit (Fig. 3: the combination of Signal Processor 7, anti-feedback unit 8, and self-checking unit 9 reads on the claimed sound processor), the sound processor configured via instructions to perform:
initiating a self-check (para [0005]: user could test if hearing aid is working properly via a self-check; and para [0082]: The determination of the status of the one or more features in the hearing aid device is performed when either the hearing aid device is positioned on a table or is worn by a user);
in response to the self-check, measuring a transfer function of a feedback path between the receiver to the microphone (Fig. 3: anti-feedback unit 8 is configured to estimate a first feedback response of a feedback path 10 from the speaker 6 to the first microphone 5; also see para [0012]: The anti-feedback unit in the hearing aid device receives the output audio signal from the signal processor and the secondary first audio signal from the first microphone. The output audio signal is generated based on the first acoustic signal received by the first microphone at time t1 and the secondary first audio signal is generated based on a second acoustic signal received by the first microphone at time t2. The anti-feedback unit estimates a first feedback response of the feedback path from the speaker to the first microphone based on the feedback estimate, i.e. a feedback algorithm, and the received secondary first audio signal and the output audio signal; and para [0100]).
determining an anomaly in the transfer function via comparison with example feedback path characterization data (Fig. 3: self-checking unit 9 configured to communicate with the anti-feedback unit 8, and the self-checking unit 9 is configured to compare the first feedback response with a first feedback input signal; Fig. 4b and Fig. 5a-5d; also see para [0100] and [0127]-[0153]);
predicting an abnormality associated with the hearing device based on the anomaly (para [0127], [0133], [0145], and [0145]-[0153]); and
presenting an indication of the abnormality via the user interface circuit (para [0154]).
Regarding claim 1: the hearing device discussed in claim 16 above also supports this corresponding method claim.
Regarding claim 3: the method of claim 1, wherein the self-check is initiated automatically in the background by the hearing device (para [0012]: when the hearing device being worn by the user the self-check starting by the device).
Regarding claim 4: the method of claim 1, wherein the hearing device is fit into an ear of a user during the self-check, the transfer function comprising an acoustic path subject to an interaction between the hearing device and the ear of the user (para [0012]: the hearing aid device is being worn by the user, the ear piece is positioned within the ear canal of the user and the housing part is positioned behind the ear of the user. The anti-feedback unit in the hearing aid device receives the output audio signal from the signal processor and the secondary first audio signal from the first microphone. The output audio signal is generated based on the first acoustic signal received by the first microphone at time t1 and the secondary first audio signal is generated based on a second acoustic signal received by the first microphone at time t2. The anti-feedback unit estimates a first feedback response of the feedback path from the speaker to the first microphone based on the feedback estimate, i.e. a feedback algorithm, and the received secondary first audio signal and the output audio signal).
Regarding claim 12: the method of claim 1, wherein the abnormality comprises an indication of foreign matter affecting at least one of the receiver and the at least one microphone of the hearing device (para [0039], [0041], and [0127]-[0137]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (US 20190069096 A1 – Cited IDS) in view of Ruparel et al. (US 20230063186 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Petersen teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the self-checking unit and a user interface can be included in a smartphone or mobile device which is a part of the hearing system (para [0013] and [0046]). Petersen does not explicitly teach the self-check is initialized by a person who can be the user or a clinician.
Ruparel teaches a self-check method of a hearing device to detect an abnormality associated with the hearing device, wherein any person, who possesses the hearing device, can initiate the self-check using a user interface of a mobile device that communicates with the hearing device (Ruparel’s para [0080]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Petersen in view of Ruparel to allow a person (user/clinician) who possesses the hearing device to initiate the hearing device self-check. The motivation is to provide the user, the hearing device technician/clinician an actively means to test and evaluate the hearing device condition at anytime and anywhere when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7-11, 13-14, and 17-22 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 DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM (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, 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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights