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 statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11 December 2024 and 14 October 2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-9 and 11-21 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,205,611. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Please see the mapping below for correspondence between the claim sets.
App. No. 18/976,844
U.S. Pat. No. 12,205,611
Claim 1
A hearing device, comprising
Claim 1
A hearing device comprising
at least one input transducer configured to pick up sound from an acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device
at least one input transducer configured to pick up sound from an acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device
, the at least one input transducer providing at least one electric input signal representative of said sound,
, the at least one input transducer providing at least one electric input signal representative of said sound
at least one analysis filter bank configured to provide said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals
, at least one analysis filter bank configured to provide said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals
, the at least one analysis filter bank comprising a plurality of M first filters (h_m)(n), whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), where m=0, 1, ..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and n is a time index,
, the at least one analysis filter bank comprising a plurality of M first filters hm(n), whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), where m=0, 1,..., M- 1 is a frequency band index, and n is a time index
a processor for processing said at least one electric input signal provided by said at least one analysis filter bank, or a signal originating therefrom, and providing a processed signal,
, a processor for processing said at least one electric input signal provided by said at least one analysis filter bank, or a signal originating therefrom, and providing a processed signal
an output transducer configured to provide stimuli perceivable as sound to the user in dependence of said processed signal, and
, an output transducer configured to provide stimuli perceivable as sound to the user in dependence of said processed signal
a controller for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter to said at least one analysis filter bank in dependence of said current acoustic environment
, a controller for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter to said at least one analysis filter bank in dependence of said current acoustic environment
, and wherein the different prototype filters are configured to exhibit the same group delay
Claim 2
A hearing device according to claim 1 comprising a sound scene classifier configured to classify said acoustic environment into a number of different sound scene classes
Claim 2
A hearing device according to claim 1 comprising a sound scene classifier configured to classify said acoustic environment into a number of different sound scene classes
, and to provide a current sound scene class in dependence of a current representation of said at least one electric input signal.
, and to provide a current sound scene class in dependence of a current representation of said at least one electric input signal
Claim 3
A hearing device according to claim 2
Claim 3
A hearing device according to claim 2
wherein the sound scene classifier comprises a neural network.
wherein the sound scene classifier comprises a neural network
Claim 4
A hearing device according to claim 2
Claim 4
A hearing device according to claim 2
wherein the sound scene classifier receives the at least one electric input signal as input.
wherein the sound scene classifier receives the at least one electric input signal as input
Claim 5
A hearing device according to claim 2
Claim 5
A hearing device according to claim 2
wherein the sound scene classifier receives frequency domain input features, or a combination of time and frequency domain input features, extracted from said at least one electric input signal.
wherein the sound scene classifier receives frequency domain input features, or a combination of time and frequency domain input features, extracted from said at least one electric input signal
Claim 6
A hearing device according to claim 2 comprising a user interface allowing a user to influence functionality of the hearing device by allowing the user to select at least one of a current acoustic environment and a specific program,
Claim 6
A hearing device according to claim 2 comprising a user interface allowing a user to influence functionality of the hearing device, including to allow the user to indicate the current acoustic environment, or by selection of a specific program
wherein each selected current acoustic environment and/or selected specific program is associated with a specific prototype filter.
, wherein each selected acoustic environment or program is associated with a specific prototype filter
Claim 7
A hearing device according to claim 2
Claim 7
A hearing device according to claim 2
wherein the controller is configured to provide that a fading from one prototype filter to another is initiated
wherein the controller is configured to provide that a fading from one prototype filter to another is initiated
when the classification of the current acoustic environment is changed by said sound scene classifier or by said user from one sound scene class to another,
when said sound scene classifier or said user changes its classification of the current acoustic environment from one sound scene class to another
wherein the fading between the two filter banks maintains the same phase response.
, wherein the fading between the two filter banks maintains the same phase response
Claim 8
A hearing device according to claim 2
Claim 8
A hearing device according to claim 2
wherein a fading from one prototype filter to another is provided under the constraint that the two prototype filters have the same group delay.
wherein fading from one prototype filter to another is provided under the constraint that the two prototype filters have the same group delay
Claim 9
A hearing device according to claim 8
Claim 9
A hearing device according to claim 8
wherein a fading time is greater than 1 second.
wherein a fading time is greater than 1 second, such as greater than 5 seconds, or greater than 10 seconds.
Claim 10
A hearing device according to claim 1 comprising
Claim 11
A hearing device according to claim 1 comprising
“ at least two input transducers configured to pick up sound from an acoustic environment around the user
“ at least two input transducers configured to pick up sound from an acoustic environment around the user
when the user is wearing the hearing device
when the user is wearing the hearing device
, the at least two input transducers providing at least two electric input signals representative of said sound,
, the at least two input transducers providing at least two electric input signals representative of said sound,
“ a beamformer configured to provide beamformed signal in dependence of said at least two electric input signals and predefined and/or adaptively updated beamformer weights,
“ a beamformer configured to provide beamformed signal in dependence of said at least two electric input signals and predefined and/or adaptively updated beamformer weights
wherein the beamformer weights are adapted in dependence of the selected prototype filter.
, wherein the beamformer weights are adapted in dependence of the selected prototype filter
Claim 11
A hearing device according to claim 1
Claim 12
A hearing device according to claim 1
comprising an adaptive feedback control system
comprising an adaptive feedback control system
comprising an adaptive algorithm for estimating a feedback path from said output transducer to said at least one input transducer,
comprising an adaptive algorithm for estimating a feedback path from said output transducer to said at least one input transducer
wherein the hearing device is configured to control the adaptation rate of the adaptive algorithm in dependence of a change of the current acoustic environment.
, and wherein the hearing device is configured to control the adaptation rate of the adaptive algorithm in dependence of a change of the current acoustic environment
Claim 12
A hearing device according to claim 11
Claim 13
A hearing device according to claim 12
wherein an adaptation rate of the feedback control system is temporarily increased
wherein an adaptation rate of the feedback control system is temporarily increased
when the different first prototype filter is applied in the analysis filter bank.
when the different first prototype filter is applied in the analysis filter bank
Claim 13
A hearing device according to claim 1
Claim 14
A hearing device according to claim 1
configured to provide that at least one of said prototype filters is dependent on a hearing loss of the user.
configured to provide that at least one of said prototype filters is dependent on a hearing loss of the user
Claim 14
A hearing device according to claim 2
Claim 15
A hearing device according to claim 2
configured to provide that a specific sound scene is dependent on a measured sound level, a measured signal-to-noise ratio, a measured speech intelligibility estimate, a measured sound quality estimate, or a combination thereof.
configured to provide that a specific sound scene is dependent on a measured sound level, a measured signal-to-noise ratio, a measured speech intelligibility estimate, a measured sound quality estimate, or a combination thereof
Claim 15
A hearing device according to claim 1
Claim 16
A hearing device according to claim 1
adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user, or for being at least partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user.
adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user, or for being at least partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user
Claim 16
A hearing device according to claim 1
Claim 17
A hearing device according to claim 1
being constituted by or comprising an air- conduction type hearing aid, a bone-conduction type hearing aid, a cochlear implant type hearing aid, or a combination thereof.
being constituted by or comprising an air-conduction type hearing aid, a bone-conduction type hearing aid, a cochlear implant type hearing aid, or a combination thereof
Claim 17
A binaural hearing system comprising first and second hearing devices according to claim 1
Claim 18
A binaural hearing system comprising first and second hearing devices according to claim 1
wherein the hearing system is configured to change the prototype filters of the first and second hearing aids of the binaural hearing aid system simultaneously.
wherein the hearing system is configured to change the prototype filters of the first and second hearing aids of the binaural hearing aid system simultaneously
Claim 18
A binaural hearing system according to claim 17
Claim 19
A binaural hearing system according to claim 18
wherein the prototype filters are adapted on each of the first and second hearing devices separately.
wherein the prototype filters are adapted on each of the first and second hearing devices separately
Claim 19
A method of operating a hearing device adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user, or for being at least partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user, the method comprising
Claim 20
A method of operating a hearing device adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user, or for being at least partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user, the method comprising
* providing at least one electric input signal representative of sound from an acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device,
“ providing at least one electric input signal representative of sound from an acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device,
* providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals, using a plurality of M first filters (h_m)(n), where m=0, 1, ..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), n being a time index,
“ providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals, using a plurality of M first filters (h_m)(n), where m=0, 1,..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), n being a time index,
* processing said at least one electric input signal, or a signal originating therefrom, and providing a processed signal
“ processing said at least one electric input signal, or a signal originating therefrom, and providing a processed signal,
, and* providing stimuli perceivable as sound to the user in dependence of said processed signal
“ providing stimuli perceivable as sound to the user in dependence of said processed signal
, wherein the step of providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals comprises applying a different first prototype filter in dependence of said current acoustic environment.
,and wherein the step of providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals comprises applying a different first prototype filter in dependence of said current acoustic environment
, wherein the different prototype filters are configured to exhibit the same group delay
Claim 20
The hearing device according to claim 1 configured to allow a prototype filter of the filter bank to be changed in dependence of a detected acoustic scene.
Claim 21
The hearing device according to claim 1 configured to allow a prototype filter of the filter bank to be changed in dependence of a detected acoustic scene
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 are objected to because of informalities in the claim language. The phrase “in dependence of” is grammatically improper English and does not have a clear meaning. However, the phrase “in dependence of” appears to be a translational error, where the common English equivalent would be “based on”.
If acceptable to the applicant, the phrase “in dependence of” may be amended to “based on” to overcome the rejection. Other logically equivalent phrases, such as “in dependence on” or “in dependence upon”, could also be incorporated to overcome the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims include non-standard characters for which the meaning is unclear. The use of the non-standard characters, in lieu of or in conjunction with standard punctuation, creates ambiguity as to the syntactic relationship between the claimed limitations. The non-standard characters appear to be used as bullet points and are understood as creating a list, thus implying that the non-standard characters provide structural meaning. However, the structural meaning of the non-standard characters themselves is not clear, as the understood meaning varies between clauses (e.g., the first bullet point in claim 1 appears to be equivalent to a colon, however the second bullet point appears to relate to a comma being used in place of an expected semicolon). Further, though the non-standard characters appear to be used in place of expected punctuation, such as colons and semicolons, it is noted that the colons and semicolons are not used at any point in any the claims (even in claims which do not contain the non-standard characters), thus calling into question whether the non-standard characters are intended to provide an equivalent meaning or not.
To overcome the rejection above, applicant is advised to remove the non-standard characters and revise punctuation as appropriate to reflect any intended meaning in the non-standard characters.
Regarding claim 1, and mutatis mutandis claim 19, the phrase “where m=0, 1, ..., M-1 is a frequency band index” is unclear. Claim 1 recites “where m=0, 1, ..., M-1 is a frequency band index” at line 8. The part “m=0, 1, ..., M-1” creates at least two alternative readings of the wherein clause. In the first alternative reading, “m=0, 1, ..., M-1” is read as a complete claim part and is the subject of the clause, based on the position of the verb “is”. In this case, the wherein clause is asserting that a part named “m=0,1,…,M-1” is a frequency band index. In the second alternative reading, applicant intends that “m” is the frequency band index and intends “=0, 1, ..., M-1” as a list of values which correspond to m. In this interpretation, the meaning and application of the values is unclear. Does m include all of those values simultaneously, are they intended to be read as alternative embodiments, or as a range of values from which m can be selected? Further, even within the range, it is unclear which values correspond to the ellipsis. The use of an ellipsis in the above claim limitation is unclear, as it corresponds to the claim being limited to a value not clearly recited in the claim or otherwise disclosed in the specification. As presented, the specification fails to further clarify the meaning of the ellipsis. A frequency band index is only expressly recited in the specification twice, and each time with relation to a verbatim recitation of the limitation as presented in claims 1 and 19. Therefore, claims 1 and 19 lack clarity and the claims are rejected.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 11-12, and 17-18, the limitations incorporated into the preamble and/or the body of the claim are unclear. It is noted that the claims are generally presented without internal punctuation or with limited internal punctuation. However, in claims 6-7, 11-12, and 17-18, said lack of punctuation results in a lack of clarity as to which transition the applicant considers as the transition under 37 CFR 1.75(e)(2), separating the “preamble,” which incorporates previously cited limitations, in cases of dependency, and comprises “a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known” under 37 CFR 1.75(e)(1), and the “elements, steps and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion” under 37 CFR 1.75(e)(3).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “is configured to provide that a fading… is initiated” lacks clarity. The claim recites that the controller is configured to provide, but it is unclear what exactly is being provided. The statement that “a fading from one prototype filter to another is initiated” is not causally related to the controller. The initiation is described passively and can occur from any source. The initiating results in the fading, thus the fading is also not causally related to the controller, in light of the act of providing. Though the claim is further limited by “when the classification of the current acoustic environment is changed by said sound scene classifier or by said user from one sound scene class to another” neither of these events are described as being controlled by the controller or as being related to the providing. As such, claim 7 asserts a configuration to provide a functional description of a part of a device, without actually describing a clear end result of the providing (i.e., a resulting function). Therefore, claim 7 lacks clarity and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding claims 2-18, and 20, claims 2-18 and 20 incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and 19 by reference. Therefore, claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosgaard (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0359139, hereinafter Mosgaard) in view of Neuendorf (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0217607, hereinafter Neuendorf).
Regarding claim 1, Mosgaard discloses A hearing device, comprising (Systems and methods described with reference to the “hearing aid system”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0032], [0034]) *at least one input transducer configured to pick up sound from an acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device (Discloses “the acoustical-electrical input transducers 101 a-b, which in the following may also be denoted microphones, provide analog output signals that are converted into digital output signals by analog-digital converters (ADC) and subsequently provided to a filter bank 102 adapted to transform the signals into the time-frequency domain,” which, as a “hearing aid” is configured to pick up sound from the acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0034], [0036]), the at least one input transducer providing at least one electric input signal representative of said sound, (both the “analog output signals” and the “digital output signals” which is the result of a conversion “by analog-digital converters (ADC)” are electrical input signals, from the perspective of the filter bank 102, which are representative of the received sound at the transducers 101 a-b.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0034], [0036]) at least one analysis filter bank configured to provide said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals (The “input signals are first transformed into a number of frequency band signals by a time-domain filter bank” where the filterbank 102 can be “a polyphase filterbank” where a polyphase filterbank is known in the art to split a signal into multiple subbands using polyphase finite impulse response (FIR) filters and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT); Mosgaard, ¶ [0036], [0038]), the at least one analysis filter bank comprising a plurality of M first filters h_m(n), whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), where m=0, 1,..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and n is a time index, (Discloses the use of “a polyphase filterbank”. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, the disclosure of a “polyphase filterbank” is a direct disclosure of the known structural and mathematical components which define said polyphase filterbank. Said definition includes a plurality of subband filters. The universal equation for the impulse response of a subband filter in a polyphase/WOLA system is h_m(n) = h(n)*e^(j*(2pi/M)*m*n), where h(n) represents the prototype filter, n represents the discrete time sample (the time index), m represents which specific subband is being calculated (the frequency band index), and M is the total number of bands. As such, by the fact that it discloses the use of a polyphase filterbank, Mosgaard further discloses the at least one analysis filter bank comprising a plurality of M first filters h_m(n), whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), where m=0, 1,..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and n is a time index.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0036], [0038]) * a processor for processing said at least one electric input signal provided by said at least one analysis filter bank, or a signal originating therefrom, and providing a processed signal, (“The input signals 101-a and 101-b are branched and provided both to the digital signal processor 201 and to a sound classifier 203” and “digital signal processor 201 may be adapted to provide various forms of signal processing including at least: beam forming, noise reduction, speech enhancement and hearing compensation”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0088]-[0089]) * an output transducer configured to provide stimuli perceivable as sound to the user in dependence of said processed signal, and (“The hearing aid system 200 comprises...an electrical-acoustical output transducer 202”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0087]) * a controller for controlling [signal processing]... in dependence of said current acoustic environment (“The sound classifier 203 is configured to classify the current sound environment of the hearing aid system 200 and provide sound classification information to the digital signal processor such that the digital signal processor can operate dependent on the current sound environment.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0090]). However, Mosgaard fails to expressly recite a controller for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter to said at least one analysis filter bank in dependence of said current acoustic environment.
Neuendorf teaches systems and methods for “providing an encoded representation of an audio content on the basis of an input audio representation of the audio content.” (Neuendorf, ¶ [0010]). Regarding claim 1, Neuendorf teaches * a controller for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter to said at least one analysis filter bank in dependence of said current acoustic environment (“The audio encoder 100 is configured to handle signals, in which non-speech audio frames (i.e. frames in which a speech content is non-dominant over a general audio content like, for example, instrumental music or environmental noise) and speech-audio-frames (i.e. audio frames, in which a speech content is dominant over a non-speech audio content) are included {...in dependence of said acoustic environment}” where the audio encoder includes a “frequency-domain encoder core 120” which “comprises a window sequence determiner/window selector 120 b {a controller}, which is configured to receive the signal classification information 124 from the signal classifier 122, and to select a window type from a set comprising a plurality of window types (or a plurality of transform windows) {...for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter}”; Neuendorf, ¶ [0050], [0055], [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard to incorporate the teachings of Neuendorf to include a controller for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter to said at least one analysis filter bank in dependence of said current acoustic environment. Mosgaard teaches a controller (sound classifier 203) for a hearing aid system that adapts the hearing aid’s signal processing in dependence of the current acoustic environment. While Mosgaard directs these environmental adaptations to the downstream digital signal processor, Neuendorf teaches that it is also known to control the upstream analysis filter bank by dynamically selecting a transform window (prototype filter) in dependence of the signal classification information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the controller of Mosgaard to not only adjust the downstream DSP but to also control the upstream analysis filter bank as taught by Neuendorf. A PHOSITA would be motivated to do so because coordinating both the filter bank’s prototype window and the DSP’s noise reduction parameters in dependence of the same environmental classification allows the system to dynamically optimize the time-frequency resolution of the sub-band signals for the specific acoustic scene. It is well known in the art that a single, fixed prototype filter forces a permanent compromise between frequency resolution (which is optimal for tonal signals in quiet environments) and time resolution (which is required to prevent pre-echo artifacts during fast transients in noisy environments. By using the environmental classification of Mosgaard to trigger the prototype filter swapping mechanism of Neuendorf, a PHOSITA would ensure that the downstream digital signal processor is provided with sub-band signals with optimized temporal and spectral resolution for the current environment, thereby improving accuracy of noise reduction and preventing transient audio artifacts, as recognized by and in light of the disclosure of Neuendorf. (Neuendorf, ¶ [0028], [0120]-[0121]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mosgaard further discloses comprising a sound scene classifier configured to classify said acoustic environment into a number of different sound scene classes (“The sound classifier 203 is configured to classify the current sound environment of the hearing aid system 200”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0090]), and to provide a current sound scene class in dependence of a current representation of said at least one electric input signal. (The system then “provide[s] sound classification information” based on the classification of the current sound environment.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mosgaard further discloses wherein the sound scene classifier receives the at least one electric input signal as input (“the transformed first and second input signals… are branched and provided both to the digital signal processor 201 and to a sound classifier 203.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mosgaard further discloses wherein the sound scene classifier receives frequency domain input features, or a combination of time and frequency domain input features, extracted from said at least one electric input signal (“the transformed first and second input signals... are branched and provided both to the digital signal processor 201 and to a sound classifier 203,” and the classifier can use “at least one of the unbiased mean phase and the resultant length to classify a sound environment” where, for example, “corresponding values, in time and frequency, of the unbiased mean phase and the resultant length can be used to estimate whether a distance to a target source is increasing or decreasing based on whether the value of the resultant length is decreasing or increasing respectively. This can be done because the reflections, at least while being indoors in say some sort of room will tend to dominate the direct sound, when the target source moves away from the hearing aid system user”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0021], [0089], [0107]).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard fail(s) to expressly recite wherein the controller is configured to provide that a fading from one prototype filter to another is initiated when the classification of the current acoustic environment is changed by said sound scene classifier or by said user from one sound scene class to another, wherein the fading between the two filter banks maintains the same phase response.
The relevance of Neuendorf is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Neuendorf teaches wherein the controller is configured to provide that a fading from one prototype filter to another is initiated when the classification of the current acoustic environment is changed by said sound scene classifier or by said user from one sound scene class to another, (the “window sequence determiner/window selector 120 b {a controller}, which is configured to receive the signal classification information 124 from the signal classifier 122, and to select a window type from a set comprising a plurality of window types (or a plurality of transform windows)”; Neuendorf, ¶ [0050], [0055], [0060]) wherein the fading between the two filter banks maintains the same phase response (“The transform window 384 is adapted to be used for an encoding or decoding of an audio frame, which is embedded between a preceding linear-prediction-domain-encoded audio frame and a subsequent linear-prediction-domain-encoded audio frame. Accordingly, the left-sided transition slope 384 b of the transform window is adapted for an aliasing-cancelling cross-fade between a time-domain representation of a previous audio frame encoded in the linear prediction domain and a time domain representation of the current audio frame.” while not specifically using the phrase “same phase response,” the reference explicitly teaches that the transition slopes are temporally offset (e.g., “a temporal position of the transition slope 384 b is adapted, such that the transition slope 384 b is offset to the left by approximately 128 time domain samples relative to a center between two adjacent frame boundaries”) to perform the “aliasing-cancelling crossfade.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that performing an aliasing-cancelling crossfade (Time Domain Aliasing Cancellation) during an overlap-add transition includes maintaining the same phase response between the two fading windows, which is exemplified in the example by the 128 time domain sample offset.; Neuendorf, ¶ [0098]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard to incorporate the teachings of Neuendorf to include wherein the controller is configured to provide that a fading from one prototype filter to another is initiated when the classification of the current acoustic environment is changed by said sound scene classifier or by said user from one sound scene class to another, wherein the fading between the two filter banks maintains the same phase response. Mosgaard teaches a controller (sound classifier 203) for a hearing aid system that adapts the hearing aid’s signal processing in dependence of the current acoustic environment. While Mosgaard directs these environmental adaptations to the downstream digital signal processor, Neuendorf teaches that it is also known to control the upstream analysis filter bank by dynamically selecting a transform window (prototype filter) in dependence of the signal classification information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the controller of Mosgaard to not only adjust the downstream DSP but to also control the upstream analysis filter bank as taught by Neuendorf. A PHOSITA would be motivated to do so because coordinating both the filter bank’s prototype window and the DSP’s noise reduction parameters in dependence of the same environmental classification allows the system to dynamically optimize the time-frequency resolution of the sub-band signals for the specific acoustic scene. It is well known in the art that a single, fixed prototype filter forces a permanent compromise between frequency resolution (which is optimal for tonal signals in quiet environments) and time resolution (which is required to prevent pre-echo artifacts during fast transients in noisy environments. By using the environmental classification of Mosgaard to trigger the prototype filter swapping mechanism of Neuendorf, a PHOSITA would ensure that the downstream digital signal processor is provided with sub-band signals with optimized temporal and spectral resolution for the current environment, thereby improving accuracy of noise reduction and preventing transient audio artifacts, as recognized by and in light of the disclosure of Neuendorf. (Neuendorf, ¶ [0028], [0120]-[0121]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard fail(s) to expressly recite wherein a fading from one prototype filter to another is provided under the constraint that the two prototype filters have the same group delay.
The relevance of Neuendorf is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Neuendorf teaches wherein a fading from one prototype filter to another is provided under the constraint that the two prototype filters have the same group delay (“The transform window 384 is adapted to be used for an encoding or decoding of an audio frame, which is embedded between a preceding linear-prediction-domain-encoded audio frame and a subsequent linear-prediction-domain-encoded audio frame. Accordingly, the left-sided transition slope 384 b of the transform window is adapted for an aliasing-cancelling cross-fade between a time-domain representation of a previous audio frame encoded in the linear prediction domain and a time domain representation of the current audio frame.” While not specifically using the phrase “same group delay,” the reference explicitly teaches that the transition slopes are temporally offset (e.g., “a temporal position of the transition slope 384 b is adapted, such that the transition slope 384 b is offset to the left by approximately 128 time domain samples relative to a center between two adjacent frame boundaries”) to perform the “aliasing-cancelling crossfade.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that performing an aliasing-cancelling crossfade (Time Domain Aliasing Cancellation) during an overlap-add transition includes maintaining the same phase response/group delay between the two fading windows, where the 128 time domain sample offset is achieving the same group delay (physical time delay).; Neuendorf, ¶ [0098]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard to incorporate the teachings of Neuendorf to include wherein a fading from one prototype filter to another is provided under the constraint that the two prototype filters have the same group delay. Mosgaard teaches a controller (sound classifier 203) for a hearing aid system that adapts the hearing aid’s signal processing in dependence of the current acoustic environment. While Mosgaard directs these environmental adaptations to the downstream digital signal processor, Neuendorf teaches that it is also known to control the upstream analysis filter bank by dynamically selecting a transform window (prototype filter) in dependence of the signal classification information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the controller of Mosgaard to not only adjust the downstream DSP but to also control the upstream analysis filter bank as taught by Neuendorf. A PHOSITA would be motivated to do so because coordinating both the filter bank’s prototype window and the DSP’s noise reduction parameters in dependence of the same environmental classification allows the system to dynamically optimize the time-frequency resolution of the sub-band signals for the specific acoustic scene. It is well known in the art that a single, fixed prototype filter forces a permanent compromise between frequency resolution (which is optimal for tonal signals in quiet environments) and time resolution (which is required to prevent pre-echo artifacts during fast transients in noisy environments. By using the environmental classification of Mosgaard to trigger the prototype filter swapping mechanism of Neuendorf, a PHOSITA would ensure that the downstream digital signal processor is provided with sub-band signals with optimized temporal and spectral resolution for the current environment, thereby improving accuracy of noise reduction and preventing transient audio artifacts, as recognized by and in light of the disclosure of Neuendorf. (Neuendorf, ¶ [0028], [0120]-[0121]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mosgaard further discloses * at least two input transducers configured to pick up sound from an acoustic environment around the user (Discloses a hearing aid system 200 including “the acoustical-electrical input transducers 101 a-b”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0087]) when the user is wearing the hearing device (A hearing aid functions as a wearable device and capture sound form the acoustic environment when the device is worn; Mosgaard, ¶ [0087], [0090]), the at least two input transducers providing at least two electric input signals representative of said sound, (“the acoustical-electrical input transducers 101 a-b, which in the following may also be denoted microphones, provide analog output signals that are converted into digital output signals by analog-digital converters (ADC) and subsequently provided to a filter bank 102 adapted to transform the signals into the time-frequency domain.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0088]) * a beamformer configured to provide beamformed signal in dependence of said at least two electric input signals and predefined and/or adaptively updated beamformer weights (“The input signals 101-a and 101-b” are provided “to the digital signal processor 201” which “may be adapted to provide...beam forming” where “sound classification information” is provided “to the digital signal processor such that the digital signal processor can operate dependent on the current sound environment.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0090]), wherein the beamformer weights are adapted in dependence of the selected prototype filter (“the directional system 100 described above the optimum steering vector D* may be given by: <Eq. 11>“ where the optimum steering vector constitutes the spatial coefficients, or beamformer weights, used to steer the microphone array. The optimum steering vector is, as the name suggests, an optimization of the steering vector, also called the “Inter-Microphone Transfer Function (IMTF) that represents the transfer function between the two microphones with respect to a specific source {in dependence of the environment}.” As Neuendorf discloses applying a different prototype filter in dependence of the current acoustic environment, and the optimum steering vector is in dependence of the same current environment, the optimum steering vectors is also in dependence of the different prototype filter.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0042], [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mosgaard further discloses adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user, or for being at least partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user (the “hearing aid system may comprise a single hearing aid (a so called monaural hearing aid system) or comprise two hearing aids, one for each ear of the hearing aid user (a so called binaural hearing aid system)” and can include “a traditional loudspeaker as output transducer” as well as “cochlear implants, implantable middle ear hearing devices (IMEHD), bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA) and various other electro-mechanical transducer based solutions including e.g. systems based on using a laser diode for directly inducing vibration of the eardrum.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mosgaard further discloses being constituted by or comprising an air-conduction type hearing aid, a bone-conduction type hearing aid, a cochlear implant type hearing aid, or a combination thereof (the “hearing aid system may comprise a single hearing aid (a so called monaural hearing aid system) or comprise two hearing aids, one for each ear of the hearing aid user (a so called binaural hearing aid system)” and can include “a traditional loudspeaker as output transducer” as well as “cochlear implants, implantable middle ear hearing devices (IMEHD), bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA) and various other electro-mechanical transducer based solutions including e.g. systems based on using a laser diode for directly inducing vibration of the eardrum.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 17, Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose A binaural hearing system comprising first and second hearing devices according to claim 1 (See mapping regarding claim 1, as presented with relation to “a binaural hearing aid system comprising two hearing aids each having two microphones.”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0084]; Mapping of Mosgaard and Neuendorf as presented with relation to claim 1) wherein the hearing system is configured to change the prototype filters of the first and second hearing aids of the binaural hearing aid system simultaneously (Discloses “The input signals 101-a and 101-b are branched and provided both to the digital signal processor 201 and to a sound classifier 203.” which, in some embodiments, can be derived from “a binaural hearing aid system comprising two hearing aids each having two microphones.” As the binaural system is described with a single system with a single sound classifier 203, the sound classifier is determining and delivering the environmental classification simultaneously to the binaural hearing aid system, including both earpieces. As such, the change of the prototype filters, as incorporated from Neuendorf, is also simultaneous.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0084], [0089]).
Regarding claim 19, Mosgaard discloses A method of operating a hearing device adapted for being located at or in an ear of a user, or for being at least partially implanted in the head at an ear of the user, the method comprising (Systems and methods described with reference to the “hearing aid system”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0032], [0034]) * providing at least one electric input signal representative of sound from an acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device, (Discloses “the acoustical-electrical input transducers 101 a-b, which in the following may also be denoted microphones, provide analog output signals that are converted into digital output signals by analog-digital converters (ADC) and subsequently provided to a filter bank 102 adapted to transform the signals into the time-frequency domain,” which, as a “hearing aid” is configured to pick up sound from the acoustic environment around the user when the user is wearing the hearing device.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0034], [0036]) * providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals (The “input signals are first transformed into a number of frequency band signals by a time-domain filter bank” where the filterbank 102 can be “a polyphase filterbank” where a polyphase filterbank is known in the art to split a signal into multiple subbands using polyphase finite impulse response (FIR) filters and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT); Mosgaard, ¶ [0036], [0038]), using a plurality of M first filters (h_m)(n), where m=0, 1,..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), n being a time index, (Discloses the use of “a polyphase filterbank”. To a person of ordinary skill in the art, the disclosure of a “polyphase filterbank” is a direct disclosure of the known structural and mathematical components which define said polyphase filterbank. Said definition includes a plurality of subband filters. The universal equation for the impulse response of a subband filter in a polyphase/WOLA system is h_m(n) = h(n)*e^(j*(2pi/M)*m*n), where h(n) represents the prototype filter, n represents the discrete time sample (the time index), m represents which specific subband is being calculated (the frequency band index), and M is the total number of bands. As such, by the fact that it discloses the use of a polyphase filterbank, Mosgaard further discloses the at least one analysis filter bank comprising a plurality of M first filters h_m(n), whose impulse responses are modulated from a first prototype filter h(n), where m=0, 1,..., M-1 is a frequency band index, and n is a time index.; Mosgaard, ¶ [0036], [0038]) * processing said at least one electric input signal, or a signal originating therefrom, and providing a processed signal (“The input signals 101-a and 101-b are branched and provided both to the digital signal processor 201 and to a sound classifier 203” and “digital signal processor 201 may be adapted to provide various forms of signal processing including at least: beam forming, noise reduction, speech enhancement and hearing compensation”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0088]-[0089]), and* providing stimuli perceivable as sound to the user in dependence of said processed signal (“The hearing aid system 200 comprises...an electrical-acoustical output transducer 202”; Mosgaard, ¶ [0087]). However, Mosgaard fail(s) to expressly recite wherein the step of providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals comprises applying a different first prototype filter in dependence of said current acoustic environment.
The relevance of Neuendorf is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 19, Neuendorf teaches wherein the step of providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals comprises applying a different first prototype filter in dependence of said current acoustic environment (“The audio encoder 100 is configured to handle signals, in which non-speech audio frames (i.e. frames in which a speech content is non-dominant over a general audio content like, for example, instrumental music or environmental noise) and speech-audio-frames (i.e. audio frames, in which a speech content is dominant over a non-speech audio content) are included {...in dependence of said acoustic environment}” where the audio encoder includes a “frequency-domain encoder core 120” which “comprises a window sequence determiner/window selector 120 b {a controller}, which is configured to receive the signal classification information 124 from the signal classifier 122, and to select a window type from a set comprising a plurality of window types (or a plurality of transform windows) {...for controlling said analysis filter bank by applying a different first prototype filter}” in response to said classification.; Neuendorf, ¶ [0050], [0055], [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard to incorporate the teachings of Neuendorf to include wherein the step of providing said at least one electric input signal as a multitude of frequency sub-band signals comprises applying a different first prototype filter in dependence of said current acoustic environment. Mosgaard teaches a controller (sound classifier 203) for a hearing aid system that adapts the hearing aid’s signal processing in dependence of the current acoustic environment. While Mosgaard directs these environmental adaptations to the downstream digital signal processor, Neuendorf teaches that it is also known to control the upstream analysis filter bank by dynamically selecting a transform window (prototype filter) in dependence of the signal classification information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the controller of Mosgaard to not only adjust the downstream DSP but to also control the upstream analysis filter bank as taught by Neuendorf. A PHOSITA would be motivated to do so because coordinating both the filter bank’s prototype window and the DSP’s noise reduction parameters in dependence of the same environmental classification allows the system to dynamically optimize the time-frequency resolution of the sub-band signals for the specific acoustic scene. It is well known in the art that a single, fixed prototype filter forces a permanent compromise between frequency resolution (which is optimal for tonal signals in quiet environments) and time resolution (which is required to prevent pre-echo artifacts during fast transients in noisy environments. By using the environmental classification of Mosgaard to trigger the prototype filter swapping mechanism of Neuendorf, a PHOSITA would ensure that the downstream digital signal processor is provided with sub-band signals with optimized temporal and spectral resolution for the current environment, thereby improving accuracy of noise reduction and preventing transient audio artifacts, as recognized by and in light of the disclosure of Neuendorf. (Neuendorf, ¶ [0028], [0120]-[0121]).
Claims 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosgaard and Neuendorf as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Guo (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0082453, hereinafter Guo ).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite wherein the sound scene classifier comprises a neural network.
Guo teaches systems and methods for “acoustic based environment classification using neural networks.” (Guo, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 3, Guo teaches wherein the sound scene classifier comprises a neural network (“At operation 320, the convolutional engine 215 processes the audio data to generate audio feature data items that describe audio features (e.g., sounds such as a knife being dropped, or a school bus horn) of the environment. In some example embodiments, the convolutional engine 215 implements a convolutional neural network that uses the audio data to generate the audio feature data as vector data that can be processed in one or more hidden layers the neural network architecture.”; Guo, ¶ [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Guo to include wherein the sound scene classifier comprises a neural network. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank in response to environmental classifications. However, traditional environmental classifiers, such as the classifier in Mosgaard, rely on heuristic rules and static thresholds for determining changes in environment, which results in less flexibility and accuracy in determining changing environmental conditions or entering novel environments. Guo teaches “a novel framework of neural networks to more accurately classify an environment using acoustic data from the environment.” A PHOSITA would be motivated to exchange the prior art environmental classifier for the neural network environmental classifier described in Guo to achieve greater flexibility in environmental detection, and to include a trainable framework which can learn aspects of novel environments, thus allowing for more reliable detection over time, allowing “a given environment” to “be efficiently and accurately identified,” as recognized by Guo. (Guo, ¶ [0018]-[0019]).
Claims 6, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosgaard and Neuendorf as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Westermann (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0249259, hereinafter Westermann).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard fails to expressly recite wherein each selected current acoustic environment and/or selected specific program is associated with a specific prototype filter.
The relevance of Neuendorf is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Neuendorf teaches wherein each selected current acoustic environment and/or selected specific program is associated with a specific prototype filter (the “window sequence determiner/window selector 120 b {a controller}, which is configured to receive the signal classification information 124 from the signal classifier 122, and to select a window type from a set comprising a plurality of window types (or a plurality of transform windows)”; Neuendorf, ¶ [0050], [0055], [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard to incorporate the teachings of Neuendorf to include wherein each selected current acoustic environment and/or selected specific program is associated with a specific prototype filter. Mosgaard teaches a controller (sound classifier 203) for a hearing aid system that adapts the hearing aid’s signal processing in dependence of the current acoustic environment. While Mosgaard directs these environmental adaptations to the downstream digital signal processor, Neuendorf teaches that it is also known to control the upstream analysis filter bank by dynamically selecting a transform window (prototype filter) in dependence of the signal classification information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the controller of Mosgaard to not only adjust the downstream DSP but to also control the upstream analysis filter bank as taught by Neuendorf. A PHOSITA would be motivated to do so because coordinating both the filter bank’s prototype window and the DSP’s noise reduction parameters in dependence of the same environmental classification allows the system to dynamically optimize the time-frequency resolution of the sub-band signals for the specific acoustic scene. It is well known in the art that a single, fixed prototype filter forces a permanent compromise between frequency resolution (which is optimal for tonal signals in quiet environments) and time resolution (which is required to prevent pre-echo artifacts during fast transients in noisy environments. By using the environmental classification of Mosgaard to trigger the prototype filter swapping mechanism of Neuendorf, a PHOSITA would ensure that the downstream digital signal processor is provided with sub-band signals with optimized temporal and spectral resolution for the current environment, thereby improving accuracy of noise reduction and preventing transient audio artifacts, as recognized by and in light of the disclosure of Neuendorf. (Neuendorf, ¶ [0028], [0120]-[0121]). However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite comprising a user interface allowing a user to influence functionality of the hearing device by allowing the user to select at least one of a current acoustic environment and a specific program.
Westermann teaches systems and methods “for managing a customizable configuration in a hearing aid.” (Westermann, ¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 6, Westermann teaches comprising a user interface allowing a user to influence functionality of the hearing device by allowing the user to select at least one of a current acoustic environment and a specific program (“The first screenshot shown in FIG. 4a illustrates a so-called entry screen which is entered when the app is opened. As seen here, the entry screen comprises a header 100 indicating the model name or the configuration, “Widex L30”, of the connected hearing aid 1, and the current sound environment program “Comfort”—either selected manually or automatically.”; Westermann, ¶ [0055]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Westermann to include comprising a user interface allowing a user to influence functionality of the hearing device by allowing the user to select at least one of a current acoustic environment and a specific program. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank in response to environmental classifications. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding common personalization features such user interfaces or user control. Westermann describes a “hearing aid configuration managing system “ which allows a user to “customize the configuration of the at least one hearing aid,” A PHOSITA would be motivated to further add user configuration and personalization, to provide the well-known benefit of coordinating device performance with a user’s indicated device needs, which improves both user satisfaction and allows for personalization without the need for professional involvement (fitting), as recognized by Westerman. (Westermann, ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite configured to provide that at least one of said prototype filters is dependent on a hearing loss of the user.
The relevance of Westermann is described above with relation to claim 6. Regarding claim 13, Westermann teaches configured to provide that at least one of said prototype filters is dependent on a hearing loss of the user (Discloses after a determination of “the hearing loss of his client and an appropriate hearing aid has been chosen, the authorized hearing aid professional sets the hearing aid compensation profile parameters (fitting) in an interactive dialogue with the client” where said parameters are incorporated into the configuration file, and “configuration details for the at least one hearing aid 1 are associated with the user account 50” as part of a “configuration file for each hearing aid 1, where the configuration file controls the configuration, the performance and/or the interconnection of various hardware items in the signal processing path of the hearing aid 1” including “the choice of hardware—filter bank configuration, activation of element embedded into the Digital Signal Processor, activation of sensor elements and additional microphones.”; Westermann, ¶ [0035], [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Westermann to include configured to provide that at least one of said prototype filters is dependent on a hearing loss of the user. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank in response to environmental classifications. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding common personalization features such user interfaces or user control. Westermann describes a “hearing aid configuration managing system “ which allows a user to “customize the configuration of the at least one hearing aid,” A PHOSITA would be motivated to further add user configuration and personalization, to provide the well-known benefit of coordinating device performance with a user’s indicated device needs, which improves both user satisfaction and allows for personalization without the need for professional involvement (fitting), as recognized by Westerman. (Westermann, ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite wherein the prototype filters are adapted on each of the first and second hearing devices separately.
The relevance of Westermann is described above with relation to claim 6. Regarding claim 18, Westermann teaches wherein the prototype filters are adapted on each of the first and second hearing devices separately (“the hearing aid account 50 includes data field 58 in which configuration details for the at least one hearing aid 1 are associated with the user account 50” and “may include a configuration file for each hearing aid 1, where the configuration file controls the configuration, the performance and/or the interconnection of various hardware items in the signal processing path of the hearing aid 1.” As each hearing aid has a different configuration file, each of the hearing devices would be adapted separately.; Westermann, ¶ [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Westermann to include wherein the prototype filters are adapted on each of the first and second hearing devices separately. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank in response to environmental classifications. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding common personalization features such user interfaces or user control. Westermann describes a “hearing aid configuration managing system “ which allows a user to “customize the configuration of the at least one hearing aid,” A PHOSITA would be motivated to further add user configuration and personalization, to provide the well-known benefit of coordinating device performance with a user’s indicated device needs, which improves both user satisfaction and allows for personalization without the need for professional involvement (fitting), as recognized by Westerman. (Westermann, ¶ [0049]).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosgaard and Neuendorf as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of De Haan (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0092531, hereinafter De Haan).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard fails to expressly recite wherein a fading time is greater than 1 second.
The relevance of Neuendorf is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Neuendorf teaches a fading time... (Discloses “an aliasing-cancelling cross-fade between a time-domain representation of a previous audio frame encoded in the linear prediction domain and a time domain representation of the current audio frame” where the “aliasing-cancelling cross-fade” occurs over a fading time.; Neuendorf, ¶ [0098]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard to incorporate the teachings of Neuendorf to include a fading time. Mosgaard teaches a controller (sound classifier 203) for a hearing aid system that adapts the hearing aid’s signal processing in dependence of the current acoustic environment. While Mosgaard directs these environmental adaptations to the downstream digital signal processor, Neuendorf teaches that it is also known to control the upstream analysis filter bank by dynamically selecting a transform window (prototype filter) in dependence of the signal classification information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to modify the controller of Mosgaard to not only adjust the downstream DSP but to also control the upstream analysis filter bank as taught by Neuendorf. A PHOSITA would be motivated to do so because coordinating both the filter bank’s prototype window and the DSP’s noise reduction parameters in dependence of the same environmental classification allows the system to dynamically optimize the time-frequency resolution of the sub-band signals for the specific acoustic scene. It is well known in the art that a single, fixed prototype filter forces a permanent compromise between frequency resolution (which is optimal for tonal signals in quiet environments) and time resolution (which is required to prevent pre-echo artifacts during fast transients in noisy environments. By using the environmental classification of Mosgaard to trigger the prototype filter swapping mechanism of Neuendorf, a PHOSITA would ensure that the downstream digital signal processor is provided with sub-band signals with optimized temporal and spectral resolution for the current environment, thereby improving accuracy of noise reduction and preventing transient audio artifacts, as recognized by and in light of the disclosure of Neuendorf. (Neuendorf, ¶ [0028], [0120]-[0121]). However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite wherein a fading time is greater than 1 second.
De Haan teaches systems and methods for balancing or mixing of streams for “hearing devices configured to receive a multitude of (possibly) noisy audio data streams, e.g. via input transducers or by wireless or wired receivers.” (De Haan, ¶ [0001]-[0002]). Regarding claim 9, De Haan teaches wherein a fading time is greater than 1 second (Discloses a “hearing device... compris[ing] a filter bank allowing processing of signals in the (time-)frequency domain” and the “input unit may comprise respective analysis filter banks for providing said multitude of input audio data streams in a frequency sub-band representation” where “A fading process” having a “fading time Δtfad=t2−t1” which “may e.g. be smaller than a predefined time range, e.g. Δtfad<20 s, or <10 s, such as <5 s”; De Haan, ¶ [0023], [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of De Haan to include wherein a fading time is greater than 1 second. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank and aliasing-cancelling cross-fade in response to changes in the environment. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding said cross fade having a fading time greater than 1 second. De Haan explicitly teaches that the fading time for this transition may be less than 20 seconds, which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 1 second. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the prototype filter crossfading mechanism of Neuendorf, with the fading time of greater than 1 second taught by De Haan. The motivation would be to apply the known hearing aid design principle of gradual transitions to the filter bank crossfade, thereby avoiding abrupt and/or jarring auditory artifacts for the user when the hearing device switches signal processing modes, such as during a transition between rooms, each of which having distinct sound environments, as recognized by De Haan. (De Haan, ¶ [0169]).
Claims 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosgaard and Neuendorf as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bernardi (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0255446, hereinafter Bernardi).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite comprising an adaptive feedback control system comprising an adaptive algorithm for estimating a feedback path from said output transducer to said at least one input transducer, wherein the hearing device is configured to control the adaptation rate of the adaptive algorithm in dependence of a change of the current acoustic environment.
Bernardi teaches methods, systems, and devices for a hearing device to implement adaptive filters. (Bernardi, ¶ [0011]). Regarding claim 11, Bernardi teaches comprising an adaptive feedback control system comprising an adaptive algorithm (“the filter module 26 implementing an adaptive feedback cancellation filter”; Bernardi, ¶ [0041]) for estimating a feedback path from said output transducer to said at least one input transducer, (“the filter module 26 implementing an adaptive feedback cancellation filter may select, based on the environmental classifier, a value of a parameter that accounts for dynamic changes in the external feedback path.”; Bernardi, ¶ [0041]) wherein the hearing device is configured to control the adaptation rate of the adaptive algorithm in dependence of a change of the current acoustic environment (As indicated above, the selection of the value of the parameter “that accounts for dynamic changes in the external feedback path” is based on the environmental classifier, which is reflected in an “adaptive step-size” {control the adaptation rate of the adaptive algorithm}, where “the classification module 24 processes a filtered audio signal to identify changes in one or more characteristics of the filtered audio signal” and “based on the identified changes” selects “one of a plurality of environmental classifiers, with the selected environmental classifier being the closest match to the new acoustic environment” and, though described in the context of Kalman filters, is not limited to Kalman filters; Bernardi, ¶ [0037], [0041], [0064], [0067], [0070]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Bernardi to include comprising an adaptive feedback control system comprising an adaptive algorithm for estimating a feedback path from said output transducer to said at least one input transducer, wherein the hearing device is configured to control the adaptation rate of the adaptive algorithm in dependence of a change of the current acoustic environment. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank and aliasing-cancelling cross-fade in response to changes in the environment. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding specific parameters of the adaptation algorithm. Bernardi discloses the use of “adaptive signal modeling to pre-filter input audio signals and output audio signals” where the “hearing device may select one of a plurality of source signal models based on the selected environmental classifier” and said selection further includes applying “updates to one or more filter parameters”, such as “a step-size of the adaptive filter”, “based on the environmental classifier” such that said parameter value “accounts for dynamic changes in the external feedback path.” A PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify the environmentally-adaptive and prototype filter swapping hearing aid system of Mosgaard and Neuendorf with the environmentally-adaptive filter parameters described in Bernardi to maintain continuous signal stability and prevent catastrophic acoustic artifacts during the filter switch, thus allowing the hearing aid to more accurately respond to “changes in the input audio signal caused by undesirable signal components”, as recognized in light of the disclosure of Bernardi. (Bernardi, ¶ [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite wherein an adaptation rate of the feedback control system is temporarily increased when the different first prototype filter is applied in the analysis filter bank.
The relevance of Bernardi is described above with relation to claim 11. Regarding claim 12, Bernardi teaches wherein an adaptation rate of the feedback control system is temporarily increased when the different first prototype filter is applied in the analysis filter bank (Discloses “determining the adaptive step-size and the next feedback filter transfer function” describing with reference to an adaptive feedback control system (e.g., “Kalman filter implementations”), that determines an adaptive step-size based on a transition variable A “that allows for... faster convergence of the Kalman filter” where the “value of A may depend in part on the selected environmental classifier.” As established above, the combined system uses the same environmental classifier to trigger the application of a different first prototype filter. Further, the above change is related to a transition variable A, and thus any increase is temporary as the transition variable is changed depending on the environmental classification.; Bernardi, ¶ [0070]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Bernardi to include wherein an adaptation rate of the feedback control system is temporarily increased when the different first prototype filter is applied in the analysis filter bank. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank and aliasing-cancelling cross-fade in response to changes in the environment. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding specific parameters of the adaptation algorithm. Bernardi discloses the use of “adaptive signal modeling to pre-filter input audio signals and output audio signals” where the “hearing device may select one of a plurality of source signal models based on the selected environmental classifier” and said selection further includes applying “updates to one or more filter parameters”, such as “a step-size of the adaptive filter”, “based on the environmental classifier” such that said parameter value “accounts for dynamic changes in the external feedback path.” A PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify the environmentally-adaptive and prototype filter swapping hearing aid system of Mosgaard and Neuendorf with the environmentally-adaptive filter parameters described in Bernardi to maintain continuous signal stability and prevent catastrophic acoustic artifacts during the filter switch, thus allowing the hearing aid to more accurately respond to “changes in the input audio signal caused by undesirable signal components”, as recognized in light of the disclosure of Bernardi. (Bernardi, ¶ [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mosgaard and Neuendorf disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf fail to expressly recite configured to provide that a specific sound scene is dependent on a measured sound level, a measured signal-to-noise ratio, a measured speech intelligibility estimate, a measured sound quality estimate, or a combination thereof.
The relevance of Bernardi is described above with relation to claim 11. Regarding claim 14, Bernardi teaches configured to provide that a specific sound scene is dependent on a measured sound level, a measured signal-to-noise ratio, a measured speech intelligibility estimate, a measured sound quality estimate, or a combination thereof (“To determine the environmental classifier, the classification module 24 processes a filtered audio signal to identify changes in one or more characteristics of the filtered audio signal, such as energy levels and estimated noise levels at each of a plurality of frequencies. Based on the identified changes, the classification module may select one of a plurality of environmental classifiers, with the selected environmental classifier being the closest match to the new acoustic environment. “; Bernardi, ¶ [0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the environmentally adapting hearing aid system of Mosgaard, as modified by the prototype filter swapping systems of Neuendorf to incorporate the teachings of Bernardi to include configured to provide that a specific sound scene is dependent on a measured sound level, a measured signal-to-noise ratio, a measured speech intelligibility estimate, a measured sound quality estimate, or a combination thereof. The combination of Mosgaard and Neuendorf results in an environmentally adaptive hearing aid system including prototype filter swapping at the filter bank and aliasing-cancelling cross-fade in response to changes in the environment. However, Mosgaard and Neuendorf are silent regarding specific parameters of the adaptation algorithm. Bernardi discloses the use of “adaptive signal modeling to pre-filter input audio signals and output audio signals” where the “hearing device may select one of a plurality of source signal models based on the selected environmental classifier” and said selection further includes applying “updates to one or more filter parameters”, such as “a step-size of the adaptive filter”, “based on the environmental classifier” detection of existing environmental parameters, such that said parameter value “accounts for dynamic changes in the external feedback path.” A PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify the environmentally-adaptive and prototype filter swapping hearing aid system of Mosgaard and Neuendorf with the environmentally-adaptive filter parameters described in Bernardi to maintain continuous signal stability and prevent catastrophic acoustic artifacts during the filter switch, thus allowing the hearing aid to more accurately respond to “changes in the input audio signal caused by undesirable signal components”, as recognized in light of the disclosure of Bernardi. (Bernardi, ¶ [0041]-[0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barthel et al (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0010182) discloses a hearing aid including a signal estimation device which determines a correlation between signals of the acoustoelectric transducer and of the pickup device, and adjusts a mixing ratio of the signals in the output signal depending on the correlation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean E. Serraguard whose telephone number is (313)446-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 07:00-17:00 M-F.
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/Sean E Serraguard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights