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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 of 19/054,258
A system, comprising: an input apparatus configured to receive input based on sound; a signal processing apparatus configured to receive and process a signal based on the received input based on sound; and an output apparatus configured to provide a signal based at least in part on the processed signal based on the received input based on sound, wherein the system is configured to identify word(s) that are likely to be present in the received input at a future period, the processing by the signal processing apparatus includes processing the received signal based in part on the identification of the word(s), and the system is a hearing supplement system.
Claim 28 of 19/054,258
A non-transitory computer-readable media having recorded thereon, a computer program for executing a method, the media including: code for receiving a signal which includes speech data; code for evaluating whether an evoked hearing percept based on the received signal would provide a desired hearing percept; and code for, after the action of evaluating, instructing a device to operate to evoke a hearing percept based on the received signal.
Claim 1 of 12236942
A method, comprising: receiving a signal which includes speech data; processing the received signal to identify and/or predict one or more words in the speech data; and evoking a hearing percept based in the received signal, wherein the evoked hearing percept includes one or more modified words based on the identification and/or prediction of the one or more words, wherein the processing introduces a delay between receiving the signal and evoking the hearing percept.
Claim 17 of 12236942
A system, comprising: a device including a sound capture device and a processing system, wherein the device is configured to convert sound captured by the system and process a signal based on the captured sound with the processing system and evoke a hearing percept based on output from the processing system based on the signal, wherein the system includes a sound prediction and/or word identification functionality such that the system is configured to predict sound that is captured by the sound capture device.
Claim 35 of 19/054,258
A method, comprising: receiving a signal which includes speech data; processing the received signal to identify and/or predict one or more words in the speech data; and evoking a hearing percept based in the received signal, wherein the evoked hearing percept includes one or more modified words based on the identification and/or prediction of the one or more words.
Claim 7 of 12236942
A method, comprising: receiving a signal which includes speech data; processing the received signal to identify and/or predict one or more words in the speech data; and evoking a hearing percept based in the received signal, wherein the evoked hearing percept includes one or more modified words based on the identification and/or prediction of the one or more words, wherein the processing is not correlated with a noticeable delay in a device used to execute the evoking of the hearing percept noticed by the person in which the hearing percept is evoked.
Claims 21, 28 & 35 of application number 19/054,258 (hereinafter referred to as ‘258) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 & 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12236942 (hereinafter referred to as ‘942). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘258 claims 21, 28 & 35 are broader recitations of ‘942 claims 1, 7 & 17. Therefore, the recitations of ‘942 claims 1, 7 & 17 are encompassed by recitations of ‘258 claims 21, 28 & 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-33, 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foo et al, US Patent 8781836 B2.
Re Claim 21, Foo et al discloses a system, comprising: an input apparatus configured to receive input based on sound (fig. 1A: input speech (S); col. 5, lines 40-47: input audio of interest is audio speech; abstract: hearing assistance system); a signal processing apparatus configured to receive and process a signal based on the received input based on sound (col. 5, lines 40-col. 6, line 22: speech input is analyzed for consistency, where obtaining consistent speech includes first converting the speech to text for word/context analysis as emphasized by the linguistic analysis of each word (col. 9, lines 21-25)); and an output apparatus configured to provide a signal based at least in part on the processed signal based on the received input based on sound (col. 5, lines 20-25: speaker is read as the output apparatus), wherein the system is configured to identify word(s) that are likely to be present in the received input at a future period (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech), the processing by the signal processing apparatus includes processing the received signal based in part on the identification of the word(s) (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech), and the system is a hearing supplement system (abstract: hearing assistance system).
Re Claim 22, Foo et al discloses the system of claim 21, wherein: the identification of word(s) that are likely to be present is word prediction (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Re Claim 23, Foo et al discloses the system of claim 36, wherein: the processing by the signal processing apparatus based in part on the identification of the word(s) includes augmenting a signal processing routine based on the identification of the word(s) (col. 8, lines 27-46: audio processing can be varied).
Re Claim 24, Foo et al discloses the system of claim 21, wherein: the system is configured to evaluate whether the output will produce a desired hearing percept based at least in part on the identification of the word(s) (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Re Claim 25, Foo et al discloses the system of claim 22, wherein: the system is configured to evaluate whether the output will produce a desired hearing percept based at least in part on the word prediction (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Re Claim 26, Foo et al discloses the system of claim 22, wherein: the system is configured to determine that the output will not produce a desired hearing percept based at least in part on the identification of the word(s) (col. 8, lines 27-46: audio processing can be varied based on the determined input signal implies that the processing is not selected when it is not the desired processing based on the identified word); and the processing results in an outputted signal from the output apparatus that is more likely to provide a desired percept (col. 8, lines 27-46: audio processing can be varied based on the determined input signal implies that the processing is not selected when it is not the desired processing based on the identified word).
Re Claim 27, Foo et al discloses the system of claim 26, wherein: the system is configured to modify a resulting processed signal based on the received input based on sound and/or replace the resulting processing of the signal based on the received input with a new signal (col. 8, lines 27-46: audio processing can be varied based on the determined input signal; wherein processed signal is based on the received input is selected from the Markush claim).
Re Claim 28, Foo et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media having recorded thereon, a computer program for executing a method, the media including: code for receiving a signal which includes speech data (fig. 1A: input speech (S); col. 5, lines 40-47: input audio of interest is audio speech); code for evaluating whether an evoked hearing percept based on the received signal would provide a desired hearing percept (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech); and code for, after the action of evaluating, instructing a device to operate to evoke a hearing percept based on the received signal (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Re Claim 29, Foo et al discloses the media of claim 28, wherein: the code for evaluating results in a determination that the received signal will not provide a desired hearing percept (col. 8, lines 27-46: audio processing can be varied based on the determined input signal implies that the processing is not selected when it is not the desired processing based on the identified word); and the media includes code for replacing the signal or modifying the signal so that a hearing percept based at least in part on the received signal will be likely to provide a desired hearing percept (col. 8, lines 27-46: audio processing can be varied based on the determined input signal implies that the processing is not selected when it is not the desired processing based on the identified word), wherein the code for instructing the device to evoke a hearing percept based on the received signal is based on one of the replaced signal or modified signal (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to replace unfamiliar detected words to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech; wherein replaced signal is selected from the Markush language).
Re Claim 30, Foo et al discloses the media of claim 29, wherein: the hearing percept is a hearing percept of speech (fig. 1A: input speech (S); col. 5, lines 40-47: input audio of interest is audio speech; abstract: hearing assistance system).
Re Claim 31, Foo et al discloses the media of claim 28, wherein: the code for evaluating is code operated by a hearing prosthesis and/or a portable body carried device (abstract: hearing assistance system).
Re Claim 32, Foo et al discloses the media of claim 28, further comprising: code for evaluating the signal and predicting one or more words that will follow (col. 5, lines 40-col. 6, line 22: speech input is analyzed for consistency, where obtaining consistent speech includes first converting the speech to text for word/context analysis as emphasized by the linguistic analysis of each word (col. 9, lines 21-25)), wherein the code for evaluating whether the evoked hearing percept would provide a desired hearing percept bases the evaluation at least in part on the prediction (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Re Claim 33, Foo et al discloses the media of claim 32, wherein: the modified signal or the replacement signal is a signal that results in the perceived word that is different than that which would have likely been perceived by the recipient relative to that which would have been the case in the absence of the modification or the new signal (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to replace unfamiliar detected words to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Claim 35 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 21.
Re Claim 36, Foo et al discloses the method of claim 35, wherein: the processing includes utilizing speech recognition software to identify the one or more words (col. 5, lines 40-col. 6, line 22: speech input is analyzed for consistency, where obtaining consistent speech includes first converting the speech to text for word/context analysis as emphasized by the linguistic analysis of each word (col. 9, lines 21-25)).
Re Claim 37, Foo et al discloses the method of claim 35, wherein: the action of processing the received signal is executed in real time during a conversation between the person in which the hearing percept is evoked and a person who generated the speech data (col. 4, lines 24-34: audio source can be a smartphone which implies ability to communicate from smartphone to a remote party in a phone conversation).
Re Claim 38, Foo et al discloses the method of claim 35, wherein: the action of identifying and/or predicting one or more words in the speech data includes identifying and/or predicting two or more words in the speech data (col. 9, line 59 through col. 10, line 9: pauses/length of time between words implies more than one word is predicted).
Re Claim 39, Foo et al discloses the method of claim 35, wherein: the action of identifying and/or predicting one or more words in the speech data includes identifying and/or predicting one or more sentences in the speech data (col. 6, lines 36-53: sentences).
Re Claim 40, Foo et al discloses the method of claim 35, wherein: the one or more modified words change a meaning of the evoked hearing percept relative to that which would otherwise have been the case and/or provide a meaning to the evoked hearing percept which would not have been acquired without the one or more modified words (col. 11, lines 7-14: recognizable words are including in the speech consistent processing to replace unfamiliar detected words to enable a user to gain better perception/understanding of the input speech).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 34: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein: the code for receiving is configured to receive a second signal which includes second speech data; the code for evaluating is configured to for second evaluating of whether an evoked hearing percept based on the received second signal would provide a desired hearing percept; and the code for instructing the device to evoke a hearing percept is configured to evoke a hearing percept based on the received second signal, wherein the code for second evaluating results in a determination that the received signal will provide a desired hearing percept; and the media also includes code for not replacing the second signal and not modifying the second signal based on the second evaluation results.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 28.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
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 R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights