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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2025; 02/12/2025; 08/07/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 01/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a signal processing unit having” “a processing unit for processing” a synthesis unit for synthesizing”; “level detector configured to determine” in claims 1-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses in Para [0009]-[0012] a processor performing the recited functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revit (US 2008/0069385 A1) in view of Shidoji et al (US 2013/0173262 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Revit discloses a hearing device, comprising: an input transducer and an output transducer (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; microphone 51 and the speaker 57); a signal processing unit having a filter bank for dividing an input signal into a plurality of signal components in different frequency bands (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; filter bank 52), a processing unit for processing the plurality of signal components (Revit; Para [0011][0040]; Fig 5; processing unit 34), and a synthesis unit for synthesizing the processed signal components into an output signal (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; synthesis unit 54); a level detector disposed upstream of said synthesis unit (Revit; Para [0041]; Fig 5; level detector 35 disposed upstream of synthesis 54), said level detector configured to determine a signal level based on the plurality of signal components and to output a level signal (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; level detector 35 disposed upstream of synthesis 54); and a level limiter disposed downstream of said synthesis unit (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; level limiter 56), but do not expressly disclose said level limiter receiving the level signal and configured to limit a level of the output signal in dependence on the level signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shidoji discloses a device said level limiter receiving the level signal and configured to limit a level of the output signal in dependence on the level signal (Shidoji; Para [0062]; Fig 6; level limiter 13 receiving the level signal from 104 and configured to limit a level of the output signal in dependence on the level signal). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the gain controller taught by Shidoji as output compressor in the device taught by Revit. The motivation to do so would have been to enable clear voices to be easily heard (Shidoji et al; Para [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein said processing unit has at least one signal processing part (Revit; Para [0040]), and said level detector is disposed downstream of said at least one signal processing part (Revit; Para [0041]; level detector 35 is disposed downstream of said at least one signal processing part 34).
Regarding claim 3, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 2, wherein said level detector is disposed directly upstream of said synthesis unit (Revit; Para [0041]; level detector 35 is disposed upstream of said synthesis unit 54).
Regarding claim 4, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, which further comprises an output processing unit configured to process the output signal provided by said synthesis unit (Revit; Fig 5; an output processing unit 55 configured to process the output signal provided by said synthesis unit 54), said level limiter disposed downstream of said output processing unit (Revit; Fig 5; level limiter 56 disposed downstream of said output processing unit 55).
Regarding claim 7, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein said level detector and said level limiter are configured to correlate the level signal with the signal level, and the level of the output signal is increasingly limited as the signal level increases (Revit; Para [0051]; level of the output signal is increasingly limited as the signal level increases).
Regarding claim 9, Revit discloses a method for signal processing in a hearing device, the method comprising: dividing an input signal into a plurality of signal components in different frequency bands (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; filter bank 52); processing the signal components (Revit; Para [0011][0040]; Fig 5; processing unit 34); combining the processed signal components to form an output signal (Revit; Para [0011]; Fig 5; synthesis unit 54); determining a signal level based on the plurality of signal components and generating a level signal based on the signal level (Revit; Para [0041]; Fig 5; level detector 35 disposed upstream of synthesis 54); but do not expressly disclose and limiting a level of the output signal based on the level signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shidoji discloses a device comprising and limiting a level of the output signal based on the level signal (Shidoji; Para [0062]; Fig 6; level limiter 13 receiving the level signal from 104 and configured to limit a level of the output signal in dependence on the level signal). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the gain controller taught by Shidoji as output compressor in the device taught by Revit. The motivation to do so would have been to enable clear voices to be easily heard (Shidoji et al; Para [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Revit in view Shidoji the method according to claim 9, which further comprises determining the signal level immediately before combining the signal components (Revit; Para [0041]; level detector 35 is disposed upstream of said synthesis unit 54).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revit (US 2008/0069385 A1) in view of Shidoji et al (US 2013/0173262 A1) and further in view of Driessens et al (US 2013/0177173 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein said level detector and said level limiter are directly connected to each other for direct transmission of the level signal. However, in the same field of endeavor, Driessens et al disclose a device wherein said level detector and said level limiter are directly connected to each other for direct transmission of the level signal (Driessens et al; Fig 1; level detector 110 directly connected to limiter 120; Para [0013]-[0016]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the level detector connection taught by Driessens as level detector connection in the device taught by Revit. The motivation to do so would have been to have a safe level of volume (Driessens et al; Para [0004]).
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revit (US 2008/0069385 A1) in view of Shidoji et al (US 2013/0173262 A1) and further in view of Armstrong (US 2007/0127752 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose which further comprises an input processing unit disposed upstream of said filter bank, said input processing unit configured to process the input signal upstream of said filter bank. However, in the same field of endeavor, Armstrong discloses a device which further comprises an input processing unit disposed upstream of said filter bank (Armstrong; Fig 1A; pre filter 52 interpreted as input processing unit disposed upstream of said filter bank 56), said input processing unit configured to process the input signal upstream of said filter bank (Armstrong; Para [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the level detector taught by Armstrong as level detector in the device taught by Revit. The motivation to do so would have been to provide for much greater flexibility in customizing the digital hearing instrument to the particular user (Armstrong; Para [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Revit in view of Shidoji et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein said level detector is configured to estimate a broadband signal level based on the plurality of signal components. However, in the same field of endeavor, Armstrong discloses a device wherein said level detector is configured to estimate a broadband signal level based on the plurality of signal components (Armstrong; Para [0040]; wideband detector 54 interpreted as broadband signal level detector). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the level detector taught by Armstrong as level detector in the device taught by Revit. The motivation to do so would have been to provide for much greater flexibility in customizing the digital hearing instrument to the particular user (Armstrong; Para [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights