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 .
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 16, 17, and 22 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.
Claim 16 recites the term "the second audio signal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
For examination purposes claim 16 is read as dependent from claim 3, which introduces a second audio signal from a second hearing device to the claim set.
Claim 17 recites the term "the second audio signal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
For examination purposes claim 17 is read as dependent from claim 3, which introduces a second audio signal from a second hearing device to the claim set.
Claim 22 recites the term "the noise reduction pipeline" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
For examination purposes claim 22 is read as dependent from claim 21, which introduces a noise reduction pipeline to the claim set.
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, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik et al (hereinafter Bhowmik), US-PG-PUB No. 2023/0188907 in view of Diehl et al (hereinafter Diehl), US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0281958.
Regarding claim 1, Bhowmik discloses a system, comprising: a first ear-worn device (Shown in Fig. 1A and detailed in ¶[0026], hearing device (122)) worn by a first wearer (102); and a second ear-worn device (124) worn by a second wearer (104);
wherein: the first ear-worn device is configured to:
generate a first audio signal based on sound from an environment of the first ear-worn device (The first ear worn device is capable of generating an own voice audio signal from a microphone that samples the environment of the device.....¶[0026], lines 8-11);
generate a speech portion of the first audio signal using a noise-reduction pipeline in the first ear-worn device (This may be achieved using machine learning (a noise-reduction pipeline).....¶[0036], lines 7-10), wherein
the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a machine learning system (¶[0036], lines 7-10); and
transmit the speech portion of the first audio signal to the second ear-worn device (Audio signals based on the own voice signal (including the speech enhanced portion of the own voice signal) are sent to the second hearing device.....¶[0026], lines 11-14).
Bhowmik fails to explicitly disclose wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a neural network.
Diehl teaches a hearing device which performs speech enhancement of a user’s voice using a neural network of the device (¶[0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik by Diehl to provide the benefit of higher quality processing as compared to traditional methods (Diehl, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a neural network.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bhowmik and Diehl teach the system of claim 1.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to transmit the speech portion of the first audio signal to the second ear-worn device when in a paired mode (¶[0030], lines 1-3).
This further combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device when in the paired mode or in a non-paired mode.
Diehl teaches, as shown in Figs. 3-6, wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device in all modes (In all described modes, the hearing aid generates noise-reduced signal (u) via the pipeline comprised of neural network (37) as a fundamental operation of the hearing aid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik and Diehl by Diehl to provide the benefit of higher quality processing as compared to traditional methods (Diehl, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device when in the paired mode or in a non-paired mode.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bhowmik and Diehl, as explained above, teach the system of claim 1.
Diehl additionally teaches wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to isolate the first wearer's voice such that the speech portion of the first audio signal comprises the first wearer's voice but not other speakers' voices (The neural network may be trained specifically on the user’s (first wearer’s) voice characteristics, to isolate the speech of the first wearer over all other signals (including other speakers).....¶[0012], lines 5-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik and Diehl by Diehl to provide the benefit of higher quality processing as compared to traditional methods (Diehl, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device when in the paired mode or in a non-paired mode.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bhowmik and Diehl, as explained above, teach the system of claim 1.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to pair to the second ear-worn device by the first wearer receiving an invitation on their phone or tablet from a phone or tablet of the second wearer (¶[0019], lines 6-10).
Claims 3-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Diehl in further view of Solum et al (hereinafter Solum), US-PG-PUB No. 2024/0414486 and Zhang, US-PG-PUB No. 2014/0023217.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bhowmik and Diehl, as explained above, teach the system of claim 1.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein the second ear-worn device is configured to: generate a second audio signal based on sound from an environment of the second ear-worn device and generate a speech portion of the second audio signal (The second ear-worn device behaves in a parallel manner to the first ear-worn device, generating a speech portion of a second audio signal to transmit to the first ear-worn device).
This further combination fails to teach wherein the second ear-worn device is configured to generate an output audio signal by applying a first weight to the speech portion of the first audio signal and a second weight to the speech portion of the second audio signal.
Solum teaches, as described in ¶[0024], lines 1-11, a hearing device (analogous to the second ear-worn device of Bhowmik) which is configured to generate an output audio signal by mixing a speech portion of a first audio signal (The central device receives speech portions of audio signals from paired devices to play back to among paired hearing aids.....¶[0024], lines 1-6) and removing a speech portion of a second audio signal (The own voice of a hearing device may be removed from the generated signal to be played back from that hearing device….¶[0024], lines 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, by Solum to avoid echo in audio signals (Solum, ¶[0024], lines 8-10). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the second ear-worn device is configured to generate an output audio signal by mixing first and second audio signals.
This further combination fails to teach wherein the mixing is performed via weights.
Zhang teaches a system for communication between multiple hearing aids wherein a hub device (Which performs processing analogous to those of the first and second ear-worn devices of Bhowmik, and the ear-worn device of Solum) is configured to generate an output audio signal for a second ear-worn device (Individualized output signals for each connected hearing device are generated and transmitted to said devices.....¶[0009], lines 3-6) by applying a first weight to a speech portion of a first audio signal and a second weight to the speech portion of the second audio signal (A hearing aid wearer may decide to emphasize the extracted speech (speech portions) of specific members of the group communication according to pre-set preferences (adjustable weights).....¶[0019], last 4 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, and Solum by Zhang to provide the benefit of a system that doesn't have a strong dependency on reverberation or other interferences (Zhang, ¶[0010], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the second ear-worn device is configured to generate an output audio signal by applying a first weight to the speech portion of the first audio signal and a second weight to the speech portion of the second audio signal.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 3.
Additionally, Solum teaches wherein the relative volume of the first audio signal is larger than the relative volume of the second audio signal (The own voice of a hearing device may be removed from the generated signal to be played back from that hearing device….¶[0024], lines 8-10).
Additionally, Zhang teaches wherein the relative volume of the audio signals may be controlled by weights (A hearing aid wearer may decide to emphasize the extracted speech (speech portions) of specific members of the group communication according to pre-set preferences (adjustable weights).....¶[0019], last 4 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum and Zhang further by Solum and Zhang to provide the benefits of a system that avoids echo in audio signals (Solum, ¶[0024], lines 8-10) and doesn't have a strong dependency on reverberation or other interferences (Zhang, ¶[0010], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the first weight is larger than the second weight.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 3.
Additionally, Solum teaches wherein the first audio signal is mixed in as a digital 1 and the second audio signal is removed (zeroed out) (The own voice of a hearing device may be removed from the generated signal to be played back from that hearing device….¶[0024], lines 8-10).
Additionally, Zhang teaches wherein the relative volume of the audio signals may be controlled by weights (A hearing aid wearer may decide to emphasize the extracted speech (speech portions) of specific members of the group communication according to pre-set preferences (adjustable weights).....¶[0019], last 4 lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum and Zhang further by Solum and Zhang to provide the benefits of a system that avoids echo in audio signals (Solum, ¶[0024], lines 8-10) and doesn't have a strong dependency on reverberation or other interferences (Zhang, ¶[0010], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the first weight is 1 and the second weight is 0.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 3.
Additionally, Solum teaches wherein generating the output audio signal further includes excluding the speech portion of the second audio signal from the output audio signal. (The own voice of a hearing device may be removed from the generated signal to be played back from that hearing device….¶[0024], lines 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang further by Solum to avoid echo in audio signals (Solum, ¶[0024], lines 8-10). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein generating the output audio signal further includes excluding the speech portion of the second audio signal from the output audio signal.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 3.
Solum additionally teaches wherein generating the output audio signal further includes excluding a noise portion of the first audio signal from the output audio signal (The device may correlate first and second signals to remove environmental noise from either signal.....¶[0035], lines 12-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang further by Solum to avoid echo in audio signals (Solum, ¶[0024], lines 8-10). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein generating the output audio signal further includes excluding a noise portion of the first audio signal from the output audio signal.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Diehl, Solum, and Zhang in further view of Ho et al, US Patent No. 10,535,360.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above teach the system of claim 3.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein generating an output audio signal further includes applying a (fourth) weight to a noise portion of the second audio signal (A device may include or suppress ambient (noise) portions of an audio signal in the generation of an output signal for that device, such inclusion or suppression being weight options.....¶[0025], full text)
This further combination fails to teach applying a (third) weight to a noise portion of a first (received) audio signal.
Ho teaches a communication system which generates an output signal by applying a (third) weight to a noise portion of an incoming audio signal (analogous to the first audio signal of Bhowmik) (Audio received over a phone call is divided into speech and non-speech (noise) portions, which are then selectively mixed (weighted) to provide an output signal to a listener…..Col. 8, lines 5-9, 17-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang by Ho to provide the benefit of a less frustrating experience when using a voice device in a noisy environment (Ho, Col. 1, lines 39-41). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein generating the output audio signal further includes excluding a noise portion of the first audio signal from the output audio signal.
wherein generating the output audio signal further includes applying a third weight to a noise portion of the first audio signal and a fourth weight to a noise portion of the second audio signal.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Ho, as explained above teach the system of claim 7.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein the fourth weight may be 1 (Locally sampled ambient noise may be included (weighted as 1) in an output signal.....¶[0025], lines 6-11).
Ho additionally teaches wherein a third weight may be 0 (Remotely received noise may be fully eliminated (weighted as 0)…..Col. 8, lines 25-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Ho further by Ho to provide the benefit of a less frustrating experience when using a voice device in a noisy environment (Ho, Col. 1, lines 39-41). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the fourth weight is larger than the third weight.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 8.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Diehl, Solum, and Zhang in further view of Pedersen et al (hereinafter Pedersen), US-PG-PUB No. 2022/0337960.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 3, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the second ear-worn device is configured, when generating the output signal, to: determine a first quality of the first audio signal and a second quality of the second audio signal; switch the second weight from being smaller than the first weight to being larger than the first weight if the second quality switches from being less than the first quality to being greater than the first quality; and switch the first weight from being smaller than the second weight to being larger than the second weight if the first quality switches from being less than the second quality to being greater than the second quality.
Pedersen teaches an ear-worn device which is configured, when generating an output signal, to: determine a first quality of the first audio signal and a second quality of a second audio signal (A wirelessly received signal (analogous to the first audio signal) and acoustically received signal (analogous to the second audio signal) are evaluated for a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) quality…..Pg. 14, col 1, lines 15-22); switch a second weight from being smaller than a first weight to being larger than the first weight if the second quality switches from being less than the first quality to being greater than the first quality; and switch the first weight from being smaller than the second weight to being larger than the second weight if the first quality switches from being less than the second quality to being greater than the second quality (Based on the respective SNR values, the signal with the best SNR value is used to provide an audio signal (either the acoustic signal, or a predicted signal obtained by processing of the wirelessly received signal) to the hearing device wearer, such selection being the assignment of a zero weight to the lower quality signal, and a higher, non-zero weight to the higher quality signal. As the system updates while processing, this teaches the switching operations recited by the claim.....¶[0151], full text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang by Pedersen to provide the benefit of compensation for transmission and propagation delays of wirelessly received signals (Pedersen, ¶[0002], lines 10-15). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the second ear-worn device is configured, when generating the output signal, to: determine a first quality of the first audio signal and a second quality of the second audio signal; switch the second weight from being smaller than the first weight to being larger than the first weight if the second quality switches from being less than the first quality to being greater than the first quality; and switch the first weight from being smaller than the second weight to being larger than the second weight if the first quality switches from being less than the second quality to being greater than the second quality.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Pedersen as explained above, teach the system of claim 11.
Pedersen additionally teaches wherein the second ear-worn device is configured, when determining the first quality of the first audio signal and the second quality of the second audio signal, to determine: a first signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first audio signal and a second SNR of the second audio signal (The dominant signal is selected based on which signal between the local and remote signal has a better SNR ratio…..Pg. 14, col 1, lines 15-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Pedersen further by Pedersen to provide the benefit of compensation for transmission and propagation delays of wirelessly received signals (Pedersen, ¶[0002], lines 10-15). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the second ear-worn device is configured, when determining the first quality of the first audio signal and the second quality of the second audio signal, to determine: a first signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first audio signal and a second SNR of the second audio signal.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Pedersen in further view of Oesch et al (hereinafter Oesch), US-PG-PUB No. 2022/0408202.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Pedersen as explained above, teach the system of claim 11, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the second ear-worn device is configured, when switching the second weight from being smaller than the first weight to being larger than the first weight, to ramp down the first weight and ramp up the second weight over a time period.
Oesch teaches an ear-worn device capable of switching between input signals in a fashion analogous to that of Pedersen, wherein switching a second weight from being smaller than a first weight to being larger than the first weight, to ramp down the first weight and ramp up the second weight over a time period (When audio is unavailable from one source (due to quality issues), audio from another source may be substituted in, reversing the weights of the two sources over a crossfading time period.....¶[0077], lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, and Pedersen by Oesch to provide the benefit of input switching without noticeable artifacts (Oesch, ¶[0077], lines 1-13). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the second ear-worn device is configured, when switching the second weight from being smaller than the first weight to being larger than the first weight, to ramp down the first weight and ramp up the second weight over a time period.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, Pedersen and Oesch, as explained above, teach the system of claim 12.
Oesch additionally teaches wherein the time period comprises 1-40 milliseconds (The crossfading period is about 5 ms.....¶[0077], lines 13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, Zhang, Pedersen, and Oesch further by Oesch to provide the benefit of input switching without noticeable artifacts (Oesch, ¶[0077], lines 1-13). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the time period comprises 1-40 milliseconds.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Diehl, Solum, and Zhang in further view of Hansen, US-PG-PUB No. 2013/0094683.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 10, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the first audio signal and the second audio signal are time-aligned.
Hansen teaches a method for a hearing device wherein a first audio signal (a wireless audio signal received over a wireless transceiver.....¶[0111], line 6) and a second audio signal (an acoustic signal generated locally via a microphone.....¶[0111], line 5) are time-aligned (A delay between the two signals may be calculated, allowing for time alignment between the two signals.....¶[0111], lines 7-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum and Zhang further by Hansen to provide the benefit of spatial cues to wirelessly received audio (Hansen, ¶[0009]) Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the first audio signal and the second audio signal are time-aligned.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum, and Zhang, as explained above, teach the system of claim 10, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the first audio signal and the second audio signal are not time-aligned.
Hansen teaches a method for a hearing device wherein a first audio signal (an audio signal received over a wireless transceiver.....¶[0111], line 6) and a second audio signal (an audio signal generated locally via a microphone.....¶[0111], line 5) are not time-aligned (The spatial cue mode which applies time-alignment may be deactivated by a user, or not initialized until specified by the user.....¶[0117], lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Diehl, Solum and Zhang further by Hansen to provide the benefit of disabling spatial cues to wirelessly received audio when not desired by a user (Hansen, ¶[0117], lines 13-18). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the first audio signal and the second audio signal are not time-aligned.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Diehl in further view of Bergmann et al (hereinafter Bergmann), US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0360326.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bhowmik and Diehl, as explained above, teach the system of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the first ear-worn device and/or the second ear-worn device is configured to apply a head-related transfer function to the speech portion of the first audio signal.
Bergmann teaches a system wherein a second ear-worn hearing system is configured to apply a head-related transfer function to a speech portion of a first audio signal (A (second) hearing aid system receives a voice signal (the speech portion of a first audio signal) from a (first) hearing aid system, and applying an HRTF to it.....¶[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik and Diehl by Bergmann to provide the benefit of improved localization cues in received voice signals (Bergmann, ¶[0058]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the first ear-worn device and/or the second ear-worn device is configured to apply a head-related transfer function to the speech portion of the first audio signal.
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Secall et al (hereinafter Secall), US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0311092.
Regarding claim 20, Bhowmik teaches a system, comprising:
a first ear-worn device (Shown in Fig. 1A and detailed in ¶[0026], hearing device (122)) worn by a first wearer (102);
a second ear-worn device (124) worn by a second wearer (104);
wherein: the first ear-worn device is configured to:
sample audio from an environment of the first ear-worn device during a first time window, thereby generating an audio signal (The first ear worn device is capable of generating an own voice audio signal from a microphone that samples the environment of the device.....¶[0026], lines 8-11);
perform noise reduction on the audio signal (The own voice signal may have non-speech sounds (noise) suppressed (reduced).....¶[0036], lines 7-10) during a second time window subsequent to the first time window (The audio must be sampled prior to the speech enhancement of the audio), thereby generating a speech portion of the audio signal (As the noise is suppressed, the resulting audio is the speech portion of the audio signal);
encode the speech portion of audio signal (The speech-enhanced audio data may be encoded as a Bluetooth signal for future transmission.....¶[0027], lines 11-17) during a fourth time window subsequent to the second time window (The speech-enhanced audio data must exist before it can be encoded); and
transmit the speech portion of the audio signal to the second ear-worn device (Audio signals based on the own voice signal (including the speech enhanced portion of the own voice signal) are sent to the second hearing device.....¶[0026], lines 11-14) during a fifth time window subsequent to the fourth time window (Bluetooth encoding must take place before Bluetooth transmission).
Bhowmik fails to explicitly disclose determining a heuristic for the audio signal based on own-voice detection of the first wearer during a third time window subsequent to the second time window;
determining whether to transmit the speech portion of the audio signal to the second ear-worn device based on the heuristic; and wherein the encoding and transmission is based on determining to transmit the audio signal to the second ear-worn device using the heuristic.
Secall teaches a system for audio transmission between hearing aids which, when presented with an audio signal (analogous to the speech portion of the audio signal of Bhowmik) is configured to:
determine a heuristic for the audio signal based on own-voice detection of a first wearer (The system is configured to implement voice activity detection to determine if the user (first wearer) of the device is speaking.....¶[0046], lines 1-5);
determine whether to transmit the speech portion of the audio signal to the second ear-worn device based on the heuristic (The system only transmits audio signals to other devices if a threshold value for speech is met.....¶[0046], lines 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik by Secall to provide the benefit of enabling private conversations while in a paired mode (Secall, ¶[0046], lines 11-13). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) of determining a heuristic for the audio signal based on own-voice detection of the first wearer during a third time window subsequent to the second time window (and prior to a fourth time window);
determining whether to transmit the speech portion of the audio signal to the second ear-worn device based on the heuristic; and wherein the encoding and transmission is based on determining to transmit the audio signal to the second ear-worn device using the heuristic.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Bhowmik and Secall teach, as explained above, the system of claim 1.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to pair to the second ear-worn device by the first wearer receiving an invitation on their phone or tablet from a phone or tablet of the second wearer (¶[0019], lines 6-10).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Secall in further view of Diehl.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Bhowmik and Secall teach, as explained above, the system of claim 20, but fail to teach wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to use a noise- reduction pipeline comprising a neural network for generating the speech portion of the audio signal.
Diehl teaches a hearing device configured to use a noise-reduction pipeline comprising a neural network for generating the speech portion of the audio signal A neural network is applied to detected environmental audio and outputs a speech-enhanced version of the environmental audio, such processing comprising a pipeline…..¶[0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik and Secall by Diehl to provide the benefit of higher quality processing as compared to traditional methods (Diehl, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a neural network.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Bhowmik, Secall, and Diehl teach the system of claim 21.
Bhowmik additionally teaches wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to transmit the speech portion of the first audio signal to the second ear-worn device when in a paired mode (¶[0030], lines 1-3).
This further combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device when in the paired mode or in a non-paired mode.
Diehl teaches, as shown in Figs. 3-6, wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device in all modes (In all described modes, the hearing aid generates noise-reduced signal (u) via the pipeline comprised of neural network (37) as a fundamental operation of the hearing aid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik, Secall, and Diehl by Diehl to provide the benefit of higher quality processing as compared to traditional methods (Diehl, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device when in the paired mode or in a non-paired mode.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Bhowmik and Secall teach, as explained above, the system of claim 20, but fail to teach wherein the first ear-worn device is configured to isolate the first wearer's voice such that the speech portion of the audio signal comprises the first wearer's voice but not other speakers' voices.
Diehl teaches wherein a first ear-worn device is configured to isolate the first wearer's voice such that the speech portion of the first audio signal comprises the first wearer's voice but not other speakers' voices (The neural network may be trained specifically on the user’s (first wearer’s) voice characteristics, to isolate the speech of the first wearer over all other signals (including other speakers).....¶[0012], lines 5-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik and Secall by Diehl to provide the benefit of higher quality processing as compared to traditional methods (Diehl, ¶[0005]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the noise-reduction pipeline comprises a same pipeline used by the first ear-worn device when in the paired mode or in a non-paired mode.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik in view of Secall in further view of Bergmann.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Bhowmik and Secall, as explained above, teach the system of claim 20, but fail to teach wherein the first ear-worn device and/or the second ear-worn device is configured to apply a head-related transfer function to the speech portion of the first audio signal.
Bergmann teaches a system wherein a second ear-worn hearing system is configured to apply a head-related transfer function to a speech portion of a first audio signal (A (second) hearing aid system receives a voice signal (the speech portion of a first audio signal) from a (first) hearing aid system, and applying an HRTF to it.....¶[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bhowmik and Secall by Bergmann to provide the benefit of improved localization cues in received voice signals (Bergmann, ¶[0058]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the first ear-worn device and/or the second ear-worn device is configured to apply a head-related transfer function to the speech portion of the first audio signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pedersen et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0314562 and Frieding et al, US Patent No. 11,057,720 both teach systems for hearing aids to select a wirelessly received signal or acoustically received signal based on a quality of the signals.
Feilner et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0314564, Milne et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2024/0357333, Goekay et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0144201, Puder et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2006/0067550, and Rank et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2010/0086156 all teach systems for wireless communication between hearing aid users relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571) 272-7488. 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 RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights