Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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 1–3 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2024/0056746 (published 15 February 2024) (“Morris”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Morris; US Patent Application Publication 2021/0076134 (published 11 March 2021) (“Goekay”) and US Patent Application Publication 2020/0125162 (published 23 April 2020) (“D’Amato”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Morris and Goekay.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a method for operating a hearing aid system.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed system and the Morris reference.
Claim 1
The Morris Reference
“1. A method for operating a hearing aid system, the method comprising:
Morris describes a corresponding method for operating a hearing aid. Morris at Abs., ¶¶ 2, 9, 61, 109, 117, FIGs.3, 4, 13, 14.
“creating an input signal based on an ambient sound;
Morris’s hearing aid 1600 includes a microphone 1614 used to create an input signal from sounds (e.g., speech and background noise) in the environment, or ambient sound. Id. at ¶¶ 62, 117, 127, FIG.16.
“dividing the input signal into a first signal component and a second signal component, the first signal component corresponding to speech of a user and the second signal component not corresponding to speech of the user;
Hearing aid 1600 includes neural network circuitry 1620 that similarly divides the input signal into multiple components, such as sub-signals 1, 2…n. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 63, 129, FIGs.3, 16. The sub-signals may include an own-voice sub-signal that corresponds to the claimed first signal that corresponds to speech of a user. Id. at ¶ 44. The sub-signals may also include a foreign voice sub-signal (i.e., speech of someone other than the user) and a noise sub-signal. Id. The signals may be divided in different ways, including applying a mask to extract one and forming a residual through subtraction of the original signal and the masked signal or by applying multiple masks. Id. at ¶ 44.
“selecting a first amplification factor in dependence on a ratio of the first signal component to the second signal component;
Morris likewise describes amplification circuits 3101 310n that correspond respectively to one of the sub-signals. Id. at ¶¶ 53, 64, FIGs.3, 4. Morris determines an amount of amplification to apply to each sub-signal based on the level of the sub-signal and the level of the other sub-signals. Id. For example, Morris describes comparing a speech sub-signal (i.e., described earlier as either an own-voice sub-signal or another voice sub-signal) to one of the noise sub-signals to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in order to adjust the speech fit curve used for determining an amplification factor for the speech sub-signal. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 53, 64.
“creating a first processed signal based on the first signal component and the first amplification factor;
“creating a second processed signal based on the second signal component and a second amplification factor; and
The amplification circuits apply a corresponding amount of amplification to their respective sub-signal to produce first and second processed signals. Id. at ¶¶ 45, 53.
“combining the first and second processed signals to form an output signal.”
A combiner 104 combines all the amplified sub-signals, including an own-voice sub-signal (i.e., first processed signal) and a noise sub-signal (i.e., second processed signal) to create an output signal. Id. at ¶ 45, FIG.3.
Table 1
Morris describes comparing a voice level to a noise level to form a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and using the SNR to adjust the voice sub-signal’s fit curve. Morris at ¶ 53, FIG.3. And while Morris does not expressly describe an example where SNR is used to select a first amplification factor for an own-voice sub-signal, the reference’s broad disclosure concerning the SNR-based adjustment reasonably suggests using the SNR to adjust a voice signal. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using a known technique (SNR-based voice amplification adjustment) to improve similar devices (SNR-based own-voice amplification adjustment) in the same way). For example, Morris teaches and suggests adjusting the fit curve of the own-voice sub-signal to achieve a target or minimum desired SNR. Morris at ¶¶ 77–78. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to apply the SNR-based process for adjusting the own-voice fit curve to ensure that the hearing aid’s own-voice fitting is appropriate for the current environment. For the foregoing reasons, Morris makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“which further comprises:
“dividing the second signal component into a third signal component and a fourth signal component, the third signal component corresponding to a desired sound source and the fourth signal component corresponding to an interference noise source;
“creating a third processed signal based on the third signal component and a third amplification factor;
“creating a fourth processed signal based on the fourth signal component and a fourth amplification factor; and
“combining the third processed signal and the fourth processed signal to form the second processed signal.”
Morris describes dividing its input signal into three sub-signals, including an own-voice sub-signal, a foreign-voice sub-signal and a noise sub-signal. Morris at ¶¶ 44, 63, FIGs.3, 4. Morris further describes applying masks to each signal or applying a single mask and then forming a second signal by subtracting the masked signal from the original signal. Id. Read in the context of Morris’s embodiment of an own voice signal, a foreign-voice signal and a noise sub-signal, Morris’s teachings on dividing signals suggests forming a first sub-signal and a second sub-signal by applying an own-voice mask and forming a third sub-signal and fourth sub-signal by dividing the second sub-signal in a similar way (e.g., applying a voice mask and subtracting the voice sub-signal from the original signal to form a noise signal). See MPEP § 2144.04(I)(C) (using a known technique (masking and subtraction) to improve similar devices (separate multiple source voice from other sounds) in the same way). For the foregoing reasons, Morris makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“which further comprises selecting the first amplification factor in dependence on a ratio of the first signal component to the fourth signal component.”
As explained in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to form an SNR between Morris’s own-voice sub-signal and noise sub-signal in order to determine how to adjust an amplification of the own-voice sub-signal. For example, Morris teaches and suggests adjusting the fit curve of the own-voice sub-signal to achieve a target or minimum desired SNR. Morris at ¶¶ 77–78. For the foregoing reasons, Morris makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“which further comprises selecting the first amplification factor in dependence on a ratio of the third signal component to the fourth signal component.”
The Morris reference does not describe selecting a first amplification factor (i.e., an amplification factor for an own-voice sub-signal) in dependence on a ratio of the third signal component (i.e., another person’s voice sub-signal) and the fourth signal component (i.e., a noise sub-signal). Morris instead teaches setting the amplification for an own-voice sub-signal based on the SNR between the own-voice sub-signal and the noise sub-signal. The Goekay reference, however, describes setting a volume for an own-voice signal based on not only the SNR but also based on a classification of the noise environment by determining if the environment is loud, quiet, contains own voice, foreign voices, music, etc. Goekay at ¶¶ 13, 26. Goekay’s teachings provide an additional benefit over Morris since Goekay teaches amplifying an own-voice sub-signal for the benefit of other people by reducing the own-voice gain in a loud environment to cause the user to speak louder and to increase the own-voice gain in a quiet environment to cause the user to speaker softer. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 40.
Further, the D’Amato reference teaches the use of SNR in a noise classification process. Read together, the Goekay and D’Amato references reasonably suggest modifying Morris’s hearing aid to provide SNR measurements of the various sources in the environment (i.e., a user’s own voice and other people’s voices) against background noise in order to classify the noise environment. The noise environment class would then be used to select an appropriate amplification for each signal, including Morris’s own-voice sub-signal so that the user would react by speaking more loudly or more softly as appropriate for the noise environment. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Morris, the Goekay and the D’Amato references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“which further comprises categorizing the interference noise source, and selecting the first amplification factor in dependence on the categorization.”
The Morris reference does not describe categorizing an interfering noise source and selecting a first amplification factor in dependence on the categorization. Goekay, like Morris, teaches and suggests setting an amplification factor for an own-voice signal based on the SNR between the own-voice signal and the noise signal. Goekay at ¶¶ 13, 26, 50. Goekay, further teaches classifying the noise signal and selecting an appropriate own-voice amplification factor based on both the SNR and the noise classification. Id. Goekay’s teachings provide an additional benefit over Morris since Goekay teaches amplifying an own-voice sub-signal for the benefit of other people by reducing the own-voice gain in a loud environment to cause the user to speak louder and to increase the own-voice gain in a quiet environment to cause the user to speaker softer. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 40. Read together, Goekay reasonably suggests modifying Morris’s hearing aid (1) to track the SNR between an own-voice sub-signal and a noise sub-signal and (2) to classify a noise signal. Goekay further suggests (3) using both the SNR and noise classification to adjust an own-voice fit curve, or amplification factor. One of ordinary skill would have recognized from Goekay that doing so would have beneficially set the own-voice level in a way that makes it easier to understand to other in a loud environment and to make it less uncomfortable to others in a quiet environment. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Morris and the Goekay references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“which further comprises continuously adapting the first amplification factor.”
Morris similarly describes performing real-time tracking on SNR to continuously adapt voice sub-signal amplification factors. Morris at ¶ 109, FIG.13. For the foregoing reasons, Morris makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“A hearing aid system, comprising:
“a hearing aid having a microphone for acquiring ambient sound and a signal processing unit,
“the hearing aid being operated according to the method of claim 1.”
Morris’s hearing aid 1600 similarly includes a microphone and a combination of an analog processing circuit 1616, digital processing circuit 1618 and a neural network circuit 1620 that individually and collectively correspond to the claimed signal processing unit. Morris at ¶¶ 127–130, FIG.16. Hearing aid 1600 performs the method of claim 1 as shown in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein. For the foregoing reasons, Morris makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“A method for putting the hearing aid system according to claim 7 into operation, the method comprising:
“creating the input signal based on ambient sound;
“dividing the input signal into the first signal component and the second signal component, the first signal component corresponding to speech of the user and the second signal component not corresponding to speech of the user; and
“ascertaining a dependency of the first amplification factor on the ratio of the first signal component to the second signal component.”
Morris describes a corresponding method for operating a hearing aid. Morris at Abs., ¶¶ 2, 9, 61, 109, 117, FIGs.3, 4, 13, 14. Morris’s hearing aid 1600 includes a microphone 1614 used to create an input signal from sounds (e.g., speech and background noise) in the environment, or ambient sound. Id. at ¶¶ 62, 117, 127, FIG.16. Hearing aid 1600 includes neural network circuitry 1620 that similarly divides the input signal into multiple components, such as sub-signals 1, 2…n. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 63, 129, FIGs.3, 16. The sub-signals may include an own-voice sub-signal that corresponds to the claimed first signal that corresponds to speech of a user. Id. at ¶ 44. The sub-signals may also include a foreign voice sub-signal (i.e., speech of someone other than the user) and a noise sub-signal. Id. The signals may be divided in different ways, including applying a mask to extract one and forming a residual through subtraction of the original signal and the masked signal or by applying multiple masks. Id. at ¶ 44. Morris likewise describes amplification circuits 3101 310n that correspond respectively to one of the sub-signals. Id. at ¶¶ 53, 64, FIGs.3, 4. Morris determines an amount of amplification to apply to each sub-signal based on the level of the sub-signal and the level of the other sub-signals. Id. For example, Morris describes comparing a speech sub-signal (i.e., described earlier as either an own-voice sub-signal or another voice sub-signal) to one of the noise sub-signals to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in order to adjust the speech fit curve used for determining an amplification factor for the speech sub-signal. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 53, 64.
Summary
Claims 1–8 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
8/16/2026
Prosecution Insights