DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 § 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 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, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah et al. (US 2018/0213339 A1: hereafter — Shah) in view of Chattopadhayay et al. (US 2015/0212976 A1: hereafter — Chattopadhayay).
For claim 1, Shah discloses a sound processing system comprising:
one or more hearing devices (Shah: [0015] — hearing aid; [0047] — a user using and adjusting hearing aids;), wherein:
each of the one or more hearing devices comprises at least one microphone and a receiver (Shah: [0022] — microphone in the hearing aid; [0042] — a speaker as an audio generation device (note also that hearing aids do have incorporated speakers called receivers)), and
for at least one hearing device of the one or more hearing devices, the at least one hearing device is configured to use the at least one microphone of the at least one hearing device to detect an own-speech signal of a user (Shah: [0016], [0017] — user’s own speech being used to indicate that the user is having difficulty with hearing through the hearing aid, the microphone being used to detect speech from the user); and
one or more processing circuits (Shah: [0041] — processing circuitry) configured to:
generate text based on the own-speech signal (Shah: [0022] — speech recognition to identify keywords that indicate a user is unable to hear a conversation (converting speech to text from a user’s own speech));
apply a cognitive engine to an input vector to determine one or more actions (Shah: [0022] — using artificial neural networks (as a cognitive engine) to classify input audio, as well as cloud services (also as part of the cognitive engine) which uses natural language processing to identify keywords in audio, perform audio classification, also an extraction of relevant features from sound (the features being vectors that are representative of relevant information in the audio); [0023] — the cloud services may be applied to send back a signal to the user’s hearing aid in order to update its mode (performing an action from the cognitive engine)),
configure the one or more hearing devices to perform the one or more actions (Shah: [0023] — the cloud services may be applied to send back a signal to the user’s hearing aid to update its mode (performing an action from the cognitive engine)).
The reference of Shah provides teaching for a hearing aid able to receive speech from a user, obtain keywords from the user’s speech, obtain features from it, and apply a cognitive engine to the obtained feature (vector). This differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for obtaining a vector based on the keywords present in the input speech/text and based on categories of the input keywords that are present in the text.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Chattopadhayay is now introduced to teach this as:
wherein:
the input vector contains a plurality of elements that correspond to a plurality of predefined categories (Chattopadhayay: [0018] — ‘(iii) generates a category vector for each sentence, with each element of the category vector represents a set of candidate categories which includes at least one element and each candidate category associated with one word’),
keywords or key phrases are mapped to the plurality of predefined categories (Chattopadhayay: [0018] — ‘(ii) maps each word from the one or more words with one or more category map tables to obtain at a set of candidate category that includes at least one category associated with each word’), and
values of the plurality of elements indicate whether the text includes the keywords or key phrases mapped to corresponding elements of the plurality of elements (Chattopadhayay: [0018] — ‘(iii) generates a category vector for each sentence, with each element of the category vector represents a set of candidate categories which includes at least one element and each candidate category associated with one word’).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of Shah which provides a hearing aid able to receive speech from a user, obtain keywords from the user’s speech, obtain features from it, and apply a cognitive engine to the obtained feature (vector), by applying the known teaching of Chattopadhayay which provides teaching for obtaining a vector based on the keywords present in the input speech/text and also based on categories of the input keywords that are present in the text, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of obtaining a dedicated vector binary vector representing the presence or absence of particular keywords or categories, leading to low memory footprint vectors with using only ‘0’ and ‘1’ for presenting the particular terms and keyword categories that are present, while leading to fast computations of binary vectors. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses the sound processing system, wherein the input vector further comprises elements that correspond to different aspects of a current acoustic environment of the one or more hearing devices (Shah: [0023] — receiving audio signal information that helps indicate the type of environment, such as identifiable road traffic or white noise (indicating current acoustic environment of the hearing device); [0028] — having knowledge of background noise (environmental classification)).
For claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses the sound processing system, wherein the input vector further includes one or more of: a hearing profile of the user, information regarding preferences of the user, information regarding experiences of the user, information regarding patterns of the user, or information regarding a current geographic location of the user (Shah: [0034] — the hearing aid may provide GPS or other location coordinates).
For claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses the sound processing system, wherein the cognitive engine is further configured to learn to determine the one or more actions based in part on what other users do in situations similar to that of the user (Shah: [0025] — historical data may be used by other users in similar situations).
For claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses the sound processing system, wherein the one or more processing circuits are included in one or more of a body-worn device, a cloud-based computing system, or one or more of the one or more hearing devices (Shah: [0026] — the hearing aid is inserted into the ear (indicating a body-worn device); [0041] — processing circuitry).
For claim 12, Shah discloses a method for making adjustments to one or more hearing devices of a sound processing system (Shah: [0011] — making adjustments to a hearing aid), the method comprising:
generating, by one or more processing circuits, text based on an own-speech signal detected by at least one microphone of at least one hearing device of the one or more hearing devices (Shah: [0022] — speech recognition to identify keywords that indicate a user is unable to hear a conversation (converting speech to text from a user’s own speech), a microphone in the hearing aid);
applying, by the one or more processing circuits, a cognitive engine to an input vector to determine one or more actions (Shah: [0022] — using artificial neural networks (as a cognitive engine) to classify input audio, as well as cloud services (also as part of the cognitive engine) which uses natural language processing to identify keywords in audio, perform audio classification, also an extraction of relevant features from sound (the features being vectors that are representative of relevant information in the audio); [0023] — the cloud services may be applied to send back a signal to the user’s hearing aid in order to update its mode (performing an action from the cognitive engine)), wherein:
configuring, by the one or more processing circuits, the one or more hearing devices to perform the one or more actions (Shah: [0023] — the cloud services may be applied to send back a signal to the user’s hearing aid to update its mode (performing an action from the cognitive engine)).
The reference of Shah provides teaching for a hearing aid able to receive speech from a user, obtain keywords from the user’s speech, obtain features from it, and apply a cognitive engine to the obtained feature (vector). This differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for obtaining a vector based on the keywords present in the input speech/text and based on categories of the input keywords that are present in the text.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Chattopadhayay is now introduced to teach this as:
the input vector contains a plurality of elements that correspond to a plurality of predefined categories (Chattopadhayay: [0018] — ‘(iii) generates a category vector for each sentence, with each element of the category vector represents a set of candidate categories which includes at least one element and each candidate category associated with one word’),
keywords or key phrases are mapped to the plurality of predefined categories (Chattopadhayay: [0018] — ‘(ii) maps each word from the one or more words with one or more category map tables to obtain at a set of candidate category that includes at least one category associated with each word’), and
values of the plurality of elements indicate whether the text includes the keywords or key phrases mapped to corresponding elements of the plurality of elements (Chattopadhayay: [0018] — ‘(iii) generates a category vector for each sentence, with each element of the category vector represents a set of candidate categories which includes at least one element and each candidate category associated with one word’).
The same motivation applied to claim 1 for incorporating the reference of Chattopadhayay into the Shah reference is applicable here still.
As for claim 16, method claim 16 and system claim 5 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 5.
As for claim 17, method claim 17 and system claim 6 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 6.
As for claim 18, method claim 18 and system claim 7 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 18 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 7.
As for claim 20, computer program product claim 20 and method claim 12 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Shah in [0045] provides teaching for a machine-readable medium, suitable to read upon the limitation of this claim. Accordingly, claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 12.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah (US 2018/0213339 A1) in view of Chattopadhayay (US 2015/0212976 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baker et al. (US 2014/0188665 A1: hereafter — Baker).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay provides teaching for obtaining a vector value based on the presence of a word in an input. This however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the value of an element depending on if an intensifier is used with respect to the keywords.
This is however not new to the art as the reference of Baker is now introduced to teach this as:
the sound processing system, wherein a value of an element of the plurality of elements depends on whether the user included an intensifier word with respect to at least one of the keywords or key phrases (Baker: [0061]–[0063] — the presence of an intensifier being used to assigned a value to an element).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay which provides teaching for obtaining a vector value based on the presence of a word in an input, by applying the known technique of Baker which provides adjusting the polarity value of a word based on the presence of an intensifier, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provide the predictable result of improving discriminative power in the vector space representing the values of the keywords. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 13, method claim 13 and system claim 2 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 13 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 2.
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah (US 2018/0213339 A1) in view of Chattopadhayay (US 2015/0212976 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of ANDERSEN et al. (US 2014/0247956 A1: hereafter — Andersen).
For claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses obtaining an input vector to be applied to a cognitive engine in order to determine an action to take regarding hearing aids. This differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the elements of the vector containing information about different aspects a current state of the hearing aids.
This however isn’t new to the art as the reference of Andersen is now introduced to teach this as:
the sound processing system, wherein the input vector further comprises elements that correspond to different aspects of a current state of the one or more hearing devices (Andersen: [0023] — obtaining a gain vector comprising a first set of gain values to be applied in a corresponding set of frequency bands (these gain values being a current state of the hearing aids in order to alleviate a hearing problem of the user)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay which obtains an input vector comprising certain elements, to be applied to a cognitive engine of hearing aid devices, by applying the known technique of Andersen which obtains a vector comprising a first set of gain values to be applied in a corresponding set of frequency bands as the current state information of the hearing aids, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have resulted in the predictable result of obtaining the current levels of the hearing aids to know where to begin while making the proper adjustment needed to improve clarity of the user of the hearing aids. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated and as applied above, the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay further in view of Andersen discloses the sound processing system, wherein the aspects of the current state of the one or more hearing devices includes one or more of: a current global gain level across frequency bands (Andersen: [0023] — obtaining a gain vector comprising a first set of gain values to be applied in a corresponding set of frequency bands), gain levels for individual frequency bands, or whether noise reduction is enabled.
As for claim 14, method claim 14 and system claim 3 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 14 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 3.
As for claim 15, method claim 15 and system claim 4 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 4.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah (US 2018/0213339 A1) in view of Chattopadhayay (US 2015/0212976 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of BERGMANN et al. (US 2016/0360326 A1: hereafter — Bergmann).
For claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses a sound processing system having one or more hearing aids, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for one of the hearing aids serving as a master device which functions to enhance the user’s own speech and reduces background noise.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Bergmann is now introduced to teach this as:
the sound processing system, wherein the one or more hearing devices includes a plurality of hearing devices, a first hearing device of the plurality of hearing devices is a master hearing device, and the master hearing device is configured to enhance the own-speech signal of the user and to reduce background noise and interference using microphones from the plurality of hearing devices (Bergmann: [0110] — taking one of two hearing devices HD11 (as a master device) worn by a user, which is configured to pick up the voice of the person wearing it and executes an own-voice beamformer in association with the second hearing aid HD12 to enhance the own-speech audio input; [0059] — having a signal processing unit for enhancing input signals; [0056] — performing beamformer-noise reduction configured to reduce noise component of the electric input signal (teaching of both noise reduction and reduction of interference from noise, the beamforming indicates the use of a plurality of microphones); [0119] — ‘[a]n “own-voice beamformer” may be used, i.e., the microphones of the speaker's hearing aids are used to create a multi-input noise reduction system with a beamformer directed at the speakers mouth’).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay which presents an audio processing system that includes one or more hearing aids, by applying the known technique of Bergmann which applies a primary hearing aid to be used to receive a user’s own speech for the purpose of enhancing the user’s own speech and for performing beamforming noise reduction through the use of other hearing aid microphones, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of having a primary hearing aid that is responsible for ensuring both ears receive the same amplification, enhancement and processing of input audio signals, instead of each hearing aid performing its of processing leading to distortions in what the hearing aid user receives. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay discloses a sound processing system having one or more hearing aids, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for one of the hearing aids serving as a master device which functions to enhance the user’s own speech through beamforming all microphones, followed by postfiltering.
This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Bergmann is now introduced to teach this as:
the sound processing system, wherein the one or more hearing devices includes a plurality of hearing devices, a first hearing device of the plurality of hearing devices is a master hearing device, and the master hearing device is configured to enhance the own-speech signal of the user by beamforming all microphones on the plurality of hearing devices followed by postfiltering (Bergmann: [0110] — taking one of two hearing devices HD11 (as a master device) worn by a user, which is configured to pick up the voice of the person wearing it and executes an own-voice beamformer in association with the second hearing aid HD12 to enhance the own-speech audio input; [0059] — having a signal processing unit for enhancing input signals; [0056] — performing beamformer-noise reduction configured to reduce noise component of the electric input signal (teaching of both noise reduction and reduction of interference from noise, the beamforming indicates the use of a plurality of microphones); [0119] — ‘[a]n “own-voice beamformer” may be used, i.e., the microphones of the speaker's hearing aids are used to create a multi-input noise reduction system with a beamformer directed at the speakers mouth’; [0151] — a beamformer unit configured to spatially filter the electric input signals and to provide an enhanced beamformed signal).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay which presents an audio processing system that includes one or more hearing aids, by applying the known technique of Bergmann which applies a primary hearing aid to be used to receive an own speech of the user for the purpose of enhancing the user’s own speech through beamforming to then perform post filtering, thereby coming up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of further improving on speech clarity and listening comfort for the user especially in a noisy environment. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah (US 2018/0213339 A1) in view of Chattopadhayay (US 2015/0212976 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Thomsen (US 2016/0142838 A1).
For claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay provides teaching for applying a cognitive engine to determine one or more actions to be performed. This differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides the actions as the activation of binaural noise reduction or adjusting compressor parameters.
This teaching however isn’t new to the prior art as the reference of Thomsen is now seen to teach this as:
the sound processing system, wherein the actions include one or more of:
activation of binaural noise reduction (Thomsen: [0102] — activation of binaural noise reduction), or
adjusting one or more compressor parameters (Thomsen: [0091] — configurable compressor unit for applying a level and/or frequency dependent gain).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Shah in view of Chattopadhayay which applies a cognitive engine to determine an action to be performed in relation to one or more hearing aids, by applying the known technique of Thomsen which performs the actions of binaural noise reduction and configuring compressor parameters, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of improving speech clarity of the hearing aid user, and setting the gain values and dynamic range of the hearing aids to values that improve the listening comfort of the hearing aid user. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 19, method claim 19 and system claim 11 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
PEDERSEN et al. (US 2015/0230036 A1) provides teaching for a hearing aid that has an actuator for adjusting the microphones of the hearing aid [0199].
PETERSEN et al. (US 2015/0049892 A1) provides teaching for adjusting parameters of a hearing aid based on user’s gesture input [0128].
Apfel et al. (US 2011/0176697 A1) provides teaching for obtaining a vector that is associated with a hearing aid profile [0017].
DelMain et al. (US 2005/0197680 A1) provides teaching for a master device which takes action to avoid interference [00165].
GRAN (US 2012/0008807 A1) provides teaching for ‘shows a hearing aid system according to other embodiments, wherein the hearing aid system is a binaural hearing aid system, comprising a first hearing aid 2, with one microphone 4, and a second hearing aid 38 comprising a second microphone 6’ [0067].
Zurbrugg (US 2015/0304782 A1) provides teaching for a hearing aid which comprises a microphone and a receiver [0050].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Prosecution Insights