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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This action responds to the application 19/078,547 filed on 03-13-2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a (1) as being anticipated by Westergaard et al. (US 2021/0352418).
Consider Claim 1, Westergaard teaches a method for operating a hearing aid system having a hearing aid with a sensor and a radio communication unit, and a further device(see fig. 7), which comprises the steps of:
Detecting(see figs. 1-5) a manual actuation by means of the sensor;
Sending(see fig. 7) a prompt to emit a test signal, from the hearing aid to the further device;
Sending(see fig. 2) the test signal to the hearing aid by means of the further device and the test signal is received thereby by means of the radio communication unit(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0026]-[0048]).; and
verifying the manual actuation on a basis of physical properties of the test signal received(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0046]-[0078]).
Consider Claims 3 and 4, Westergaard teaches the method which further comprises transmitting the test signal by means of Bluetooth to the hearing aid(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0026]-[0048]); and the method which further comprises transmitting the test signal on multiple channels to the hearing aid(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0026]-[0048]).;.
Consider Claims 8 and 10, Westergaard teaches a hearing aid system, comprising: a hearing aid having a sensor a communication unit; a further device; and the hearing aid system being operated according to the method according to claim 1(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0046]-[0078]); and the hearing aid system wherein said further device is a further hearing aid(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0046]-[0078]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claims 1-4, 8 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shennib et al. (US PAT.5,645,074). in view of Ungstrup et al. (US 2018/0227684).
Consider Claim 1, Shennib teaches A method for operating a hearing aid system having a hearing aid with a sensor and a radio communication unit, and a further device, which comprises the steps of:
detecting (see fig. 1(24)) a manual actuation by means of the sensor;
sending(see fig. 1(16)) a prompt to emit a test signal, from the hearing aid to the further device(see figs. 1-5 and col. 12 line 33-col.14, line 67);
sending(see fig. 5(15)) the test signal to the hearing aid by means of the further device and the test signal is received thereby by means of the wire communication unit(see col. 15, line 4-col. 16, line 67); and
verifying(see figs. 7-34) the manual actuation on a basis of physical properties of the test signal received(see figs. 1-34 and col. 23, line 10-col. 24, line 67), but Shennib does not explicitly teach a radio communication unit.
However, Ungstrup teaches a method for operating a hearing aid system having a hearing aid with a sensor and a radio communication unit, and a further device, which comprises(see fig. 5) the steps of:
sending(see fig. 5) the test signal to the hearing aid by means of the further device and the test signal is received thereby by means of the radio communication unit
(see figs.3-8 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025], [0066]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Ungstrup into the teaching of Shennib to provide hearing aid is selectively worn in an ear thereby facilitating the hearing aid to amplify ambient sounds. A noise generator is coupled to the hearing aid and the noise generator is in electrical communication with the electronic device. The electronic device controls operational parameters of the noise generator and the noise generator selectively emits white noise. The noise generator is in electrical communication with the hearing aid such that the hearing aid emits the white noise in conjunction with the ambient sounds. In this way the noise generator enhances a sensitivity threshold of the ear.
Consider Claims 2 and 3, Shennib as modified by Ungstrup teaches the method which further comprises transmitting the prompt by means of magnetic induction to the further device(In Ungstrup , see figs.2-8 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025]); and the method which further comprises transmitting the test signal by means of Bluetooth to the hearing aid(In Ungstrup , see figs.2-8 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025])..
Consider Claim 4, Shennib as modified by Ungstrup teaches the method according to claim 1, which further comprises transmitting the test signal on multiple channels to the hearing aid(see figs. 1-5 and col. 15, line 4-col. 16, line 67).
Consider Claims 8 and 10, Shennib as modified by Ungstrup teaches a hearing aid system, comprising: a hearing aid having a sensor a communication unit; a further device; and the hearing aid system being operated according to the method according to claim 1 see figs. 1-5 and col. 15, line 4-col. 16, line 67); and the hearing aid system wherein said further device is a further hearing aid(see figs.1-7 and paragraphs [0046]-[0078])...
10. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westergaard et al. (US 2021/0352418). in view of Ungstrup et al. (US 2018/0227684).
Consider Claim 2, Westergaard does not explicitly teach the method which further comprises transmitting the prompt by means of magnetic induction to the further device.
However, Ungstrup teaches the method which further comprises transmitting the prompt by means of magnetic induction to the further device(see figs.1-5 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Ungstrup into the teaching of Westergaard to provide hearing aid is selectively worn in an ear thereby facilitating the hearing aid to amplify ambient sounds. A noise generator is coupled to the hearing aid and the noise generator is in electrical communication with the electronic device. The electronic device controls operational parameters of the noise generator and the noise generator selectively emits white noise. The noise generator is in electrical communication with the hearing aid such that the hearing aid emits the white noise in conjunction with the ambient sounds. In this way the noise generator enhances a sensitivity threshold of the ear.
11. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westergaard et al. (US 2021/0352418). in view of Knudsen. (US 2015/0312684).
Consider Claim 5, Westergaard does not explicitly teach the method which further comprises using a resonance shift as one of the physical properties.
However, Knudsen teaches the method which further comprises using a resonance shift as one of the physical properties (see figs.1-5 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Knudsen into the teaching of Westergaard to provide a resonant circuit comprising a transceiver inductance (L1), said resonant circuit having a resonance frequency, and a transfer function where gain and phase are frequency dependent, wherein the transceiver comprises an FSK modulator receiving a data stream, and in response thereto outputting an FSK modulated signal to the resonant circuit for wirelessly transmission. The transceiver includes a controller monitoring the data stream received by the FSK modulator, and a phase equalizer unit controlled by the controller for substantially equalizing the phase distortion introduced by the frequency dependent resonant circuit. The invention also provides a hearing aid and a method of operating an FSK transceiver.
12. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westergaard et al. (US 2021/0352418). in view of Solum et al. (US 2014/0270211).
Consider Claim 6, Westergaard does not explicitly teach the method which further comprises using a received signal strength indication (RSSI) of the test signal as one of the physical properties and the received signal strength indication of the test signal is compared with a comparison value for a verification.
However, Solum teaches the method which further comprises using a received signal strength indication (RSSI) of the test signal as one of the physical properties and the received signal strength indication of the test signal is compared with a comparison value for a verification. (see figs.9-19 and paragraphs [0048]-[0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Solum into the teaching of Westergaard to provide wirelessly communicate with each other. The plurality of devices includes a battery-operated hearing aid configured to communicate with another device using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) wireless communication technology. A BLE tester is configured to test the hearing aid for the performance of BLE wireless communication via a wireless link. One embodiment uses a wireless test mode as a diagnostic tool for analyzing the wireless communication environment, such as when the communication with the hearing aid is interfered in a noisy environment.
Consider Claim 7, Westergaard as modified by Solum teaches the method which further comprises using a mean value of the RSSI of further signals received by means of the radio communication unit as the comparison value(In Solum see figs.9-19 and paragraphs [0084]-[0098])..
13. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westergaard et al. (US 2021/0352418). in view of Krieg et al. (US 2023/0139028).
Consider Claim 9, Westergaard does not explicitly teach the hearing aid system wherein said sensor is a capacitive sensor.
However, Krieg teaches the hearing aid system wherein said sensor is a capacitive sensor (see figs.1-3 and paragraphs [0051]-[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Krieg into the teaching of Westergaard to provide testing a human physical function uses a system wearable on the head of a wearer. A first sensor of the system, which is wearable on a lateral first side of the head, carries out a measurement of a first parameter, which gives information about sweat secreted on the first side of the head. A second sensor of the system, which is wearable on a second side of the head opposite to the first side, carries out a measurement of a second parameter, which gives information about sweat secreted on the second side of the head. A final parameter is ascertained for unilateral anhidrosis of a wearer of the system on the basis of the first parameter and the second parameter. An arrangement for testing a human physical function and a system wearable on the head of a wearer are also provided.
14 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shennib et al. (US PAT. 5,645,074) as modified by Ungstrup et al. (US 2018/0227684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knudsen. (US 2015/0312684).
Consider Claim 5, Shennib does not explicitly teach the method which further comprises using a resonance shift as one of the physical properties.
However, Knudsen teaches the method which further comprises using a resonance shift as one of the physical properties (see figs.1-5 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Knudsen into the teaching of Shennib and Ungstrup to provide a resonant circuit comprising a transceiver inductance (L1), said resonant circuit having a resonance frequency, and a transfer function where gain and phase are frequency dependent, wherein the transceiver comprises an FSK modulator receiving a data stream, and in response thereto outputting an FSK modulated signal to the resonant circuit for wirelessly transmission. The transceiver includes a controller monitoring the data stream received by the FSK modulator, and a phase equalizer unit controlled by the controller for substantially equalizing the phase distortion introduced by the frequency dependent resonant circuit. The invention also provides a hearing aid and a method of operating an FSK transceiver.
15 Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shennib et al. (US PAT. 5,645,074) as modified by Ungstrup et al. (US 2018/0227684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solum et al. (US 2014/0270211).
Consider Claim 6, Shennib does not explicitly teach the method which further comprises using a received signal strength indication (RSSI) of the test signal as one of the physical properties and the received signal strength indication of the test signal is compared with a comparison value for a verification.
However, Solum teaches the method which further comprises using a received signal strength indication (RSSI) of the test signal as one of the physical properties and the received signal strength indication of the test signal is compared with a comparison value for a verification. (see figs.9-19 and paragraphs [0048]-[0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Solum into the teaching of Shennib and Ungstrup to provide wirelessly communicate with each other. The plurality of devices includes a battery-operated hearing aid configured to communicate with another device using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) wireless communication technology. A BLE tester is configured to test the hearing aid for the performance of BLE wireless communication via a wireless link. One embodiment uses a wireless test mode as a diagnostic tool for analyzing the wireless communication environment, such as when the communication with the hearing aid is interfered in a noisy environment.
Consider Claim 7, Shennib as modified by Solum teaches
the method which further comprises using a mean value of the RSSI of further signals received by means of the radio communication unit as the comparison value. (In Solum see figs.9-19 and paragraphs [0084]-[0098]).
16 Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shennib et al. (US PAT. 5,645,074) as modified by Ungstrup et al. (US 2018/0227684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krieg et al. (US 2023/0139028).
Consider Claim 9, Shennib does not explicitly teach the hearing aid system wherein said sensor is a capacitive sensor.
However, Krieg teaches the hearing aid system wherein said sensor is a capacitive sensor (see figs.1-3 and paragraphs [0051]-[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Krieg into the teaching of Shennib and Ungstrup to provide a human physical function uses a system wearable on the head of a wearer. A first sensor of the system, which is wearable on a lateral first side of the head, carries out a measurement of a first parameter, which gives information about sweat secreted on the first side of the head. A second sensor of the system, which is wearable on a second side of the head opposite to the first side, carries out a measurement of a second parameter, which gives information about sweat secreted on the second side of the head. A final parameter is ascertained for unilateral anhidrosis of a wearer of the system on the basis of the first parameter and the second parameter. An arrangement for testing a human physical function and a system wearable on the head of a wearer are also provided.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Eaton et al.(US 2005/0283263) is cited to show other METHOD FOR OPERATING A HEARING AID SYSTEM AND A HEARING AID SYSTEM.
18. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____(explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Lao,Lun-See whose telephone number is (571) 272-7501 The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 to 5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Nguyen Duc M, can be reached on (571) 272-7503.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/LUN-SEE LAO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2651 Patent Examiner
US Patent and Trademark Office
Knox
571-272-7501
Date 09-19-2026
Prosecution Insights