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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s argument that the Sjursen et al and Warren et al reference does not disclose that its cable is stretchable because Sjursen et al’s cable is wound around a mechanism and it is designed to extend from said mechanism to a longer cable, the examiner disagrees. Sjursen et al discloses a hearing aid device that is utilized to mainly teach the concept of a cable electrically connected between a sound processing circuit/ear canal module and a receiver/eardrum module; whereby the cable/wire has enough slack (excess wire/cable) to allow adjustment of the length between the receiver/eardrum module/earpiece 604 and the sound processing circuit/ear canal module/enclosure 602 via a through hole (Sjursen et al, fig. 6: cable/wire 606 can be adjusted via the through hole of the sound processor circuit/ear canal module/enclosure 602 illustrated in fig. 6; para 0004: adjustable length; para 0032). The Sjursen et al reference is mainly relied upon to teach the main concept of a cable of a hearing device being adjustable, whereby said adjustable cable could be a stretch cable, as that of Warren et al below, where the length of the cable could be increased as desired by the wearer.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the Warren et al reference does not disclose the functionality of its stretchable cable being that the stretchable length is not sufficient for eardrum insertion while the ear canal module remains outside, the examiner disagrees. The Warren et al reference teaches the concept of a hearing aid device with two components where the two components are linked via a communication link wire that is stretchable along with a 3rd component, an external source component that can be wirelessly or wiredly connected to the two component CIC hearing aid device (Warren et al, para 0028: module 30 & module 40 of figs. 3-6 could be Completely-in-the-Canal hearing aid device and linked via stretchable cable/wire as emphasized in para 0041 along with a fig. 3: external source 6; paras 0026, 0028, 0031: external source component can send information signal audio signals to the two/multi component hearing aid device via wired or wireless connection). The amount and the length of the stretching is not as relevant as the actual concept of utilizing a stretch cable to connect components of an ear canal device. That being said, since most ears are only but so big, the stretchable cable of the ear canal insert of Warren et al should be able to be stretched enough for most average size ear canals; where it would behoove one of ordinary skill to makes the stretch cable of Warren et al to fit the distance of the average ear canal. As to the reasons why a stretch cable will be utilized being to prevent breakage when the cable is wound, the cable of Warren et al being stretch to prevent breakage will also include the added advantage of being able to stretch the cable to increase the length. The teachings of Sjursen et al is used to mainly teach the concept of an adjustable cable between two hearing components, while Warren et al goes a step further to teach that said adjustable cable can be a stretchable cable; whereby both the Sjursen et al and Warren et al references can combinedly modify Chen et al such that an adjustably stretch cable can be connected between the ear canal implantable speaker component and other component of Chen et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 12-15, 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, US Patent Pub. 20160277856 A1, in view of Sjursen et al, US Patent Pub. 20090180653, in view of Warren et al, US Patent Pub. 20080031481 A1. (The Chen et al reference is cited in IDS filed 11/18/2020)
Re Claim 1, Chen et al discloses a hearing aid (abstract), comprising an eardrum module arranged to be in contact with an eardrum of a person (fig. 1: 101; para 0033: eardrum implantable speaker 101), an ear canal module configured to be placed in the ear canal of a person (fig. 1: driving circuit 102; para 0033: the driving circuit 102 is illustrated to be mostly within the ear canal), wherein the eardrum module and the ear canal module are, when they are disposed in an ear of the person, connected to each other only by at least one cable (fig. 1: wire/cable 103; para 0040: wire/cable 103 connects the implantable speaker 101 and the driving circuit 102 in all ways including electrically since it is the only wire/cable), wherein the eardrum module and the ear canal module are electrically contacted with each other via the at least one cable (fig. 1: wire/cable 103; para 0040: wire/cable 103 connects the implantable speaker 101 and the driving circuit 102 in all ways including electrically since it is the only wire/cable); but fails to disclose wherein the at least one cable is: elastically stretchable from a wound or folded state and is designed in such a way that, when relaxed, the cable assumes a geometry that fits between the eardrum module and the ear canal module in their intended arrangement, and when in a stretched state has a length allowing the eardrum module to be inserted until it is positioned at the eardrum, while the ear canal module is still outside the ear canal of the person; wherein the hearing aid further comprises an external module which is at least one of: i) configured to be connected to the ear canal module for supplying the ear canal module with electrical energy or ii) configured to be connected to the ear canal module for supplying the eardrum module with the electrical energy. However, Sjursen et al discloses a hearing aid device that teaches the concept of a cable electrically connected between a sound processing circuit/ear canal module and a receiver/eardrum module; whereby the cable/wire has enough slack (excess wire/cable) to allow adjustment of the length between the receiver/eardrum module/earpiece 604 and the sound processing circuit/ear canal module/enclosure 602 via a through hole (Sjursen et al, fig. 6: cable/wire 606 can be adjusted via the through hole of the sound processor circuit/ear canal module/enclosure 602 illustrated in fig. 6; para 0004: adjustable length; para 0032). It would have been obvious to modify the Chen reference such that the cable between the eardrum implantable speaker 101 and the driving circuit 102 can be adjustable in such a manner to either push the driving circuit 102 close to the eardrum implantable speaker 101 when mounted in an ear of a user or pushed further away as taught in Sjursen et al and/or pushed further away so that the driving circuit 102 is out of the user’s ear while the user properly adjusts the implantable speaker 101 closer to the ear drum before adjusting the cable to properly place the driving circuit portion as taught in Sjursen et al such that the driving circuit portion 102 sits just outside user’s ear within the ear canal for a snug fit as illustrated in fig. 1 of Chen.
The Warren et al reference is used mainly to teach an ear canal insert listening device with two components where the two components are linked via a communication link wire that is stretchable along with a 3rd component, an external source component that can be wirelessly or wiredly connected to the two component CIC hearing aid device (Warren et al, para 0028: module 30 & module 40 of figs. 3-6 could be Completely-in-the-Canal hearing aid device and linked via stretchable cable/wire as emphasized in para 0041 along with a fig. 3: external source 6; paras 0026, 0028, 0031: external source component can send information signal audio signals to the two/multi component hearing aid device via wired or wireless connection); wherein an external electronic device 6 is able to transmit electrical signals to power the first of two components of the ear insert device (Warren et al, para 0034: earphone 30 may be electrically coupled to an electronic device 6 via suitable communication link 50; whereby ‘i) configured to be connected to the ear canal module for supplying the ear canal module with the electrical energy’ is selected as a Markush claim language). It would have been obvious to modify Chen et al such that it is a completely-in-the-canal hearing aid device with a stretchable cable between its two components for the purpose of being able to adjustably place the two components of the hearing aid device comfortably within a user’s ear canal since Sjursen et al teaches the motivation of being able to use an adjustable cable between components to place a hearing aid as per user’s preference with also having the ability to utilize non-hearing aid source components such as mobile phones.
Re Claim 2, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the cable is extendable (Sjursen et al, para 0004: adjustable length implies adjustably extended; para 0032).
Re Claim 6, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, wherein the cable is connected to the ear canal module via at least one of: a plug connection or an abutting connection (Chen et al, fig. 1: wire/cable 103; para 0040: wire/cable 103 connects the implantable speaker 101 and the driving circuit 102, via abutting/touching/leaning connection, in all ways including electrically since it is the only wire/cable; wherein abutting connection is selected from the Markush claim language).
Re Claim 7, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, wherein the cable is connected to the eardrum module in at least one of: a nondetachable or integrally bonded manner (Chen et al, fig. 1: wire/cable 103; para 0040: wire/cable 103 connects the implantable speaker 101 and the driving circuit 102 in all ways including electrically since it is the only wire/cable; wherein the wire/cable is illustrated to be integrally connected to the sound driving device and the speaker).
Re Claim 8, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, wherein the eardrum module has at least one actuator and is configured such that a vibration of the actuator is transmissible to the eardrum when the eardrum module is in contact with the eardrum (Chen et al, para 0033: driving signals drive implantable speaker 101 to generate air vibrations, therefore the implantable speaker 101 reads on the actuator).
Re Claim 12, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, wherein the ear canal module comprises at least one microphone (Chen et al, para 0039: sound collector such as, a microphone).
Re Claim 13, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, wherein electrical energy is capable of being wirelessly supplied to the ear canal module (Chen et al, para 0040).
Re Claim 14, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, wherein electrical energy is capable of being supplied to the ear canal module via positive a nonpositive connection (Chen et al, fig. 1: wire/cable 103; para 0040: wire/cable 103 connects the implantable speaker 101 and the driving circuit 102 in all ways including electrically since it is the only wire/cable; wherein the connection will naturally be a positive or a nonpositive connection; with positive and nonpositive connection being selected from the Markush claim language).
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Re Claim 22, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 15, wherein a signal transmission connection is capable of being established between the external module and the ear canal module (Warren et al, para 0034: earphone 30 may be electrically coupled to an electronic device 6 via suitable communication link 50).
Re Claim 23, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 22, wherein the signal transmission connection is independent of the connection for supplying the ear canal module with electrical energy or wherein the signal transmission connection is made via the connection for supplying the ear canal module with electrical energy (Warren et al, para 0034: earphone 30 may be electrically coupled to an electronic device 6 via suitable communication link 50; whereby ‘i) configured to be connected to the ear canal module for supplying the ear canal module with the electrical energy’ is selected as a Markush claim language).
Re Claim 24, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 15, wherein the external module has an interface for establishing a connection to an external device (Warren et al, para 0034: earphone 30 may be electrically coupled to an electronic device 6 via suitable communication link 50).
Re Claim 25, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 15, wherein the external module has an interface for receiving an audio signal from an audio source (Warren et al, fig. 3: external source 6; paras 0026, 0028, 0031: external source component can send information signal audio signals via wired or wireless links).
Re Claim 26, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 15, wherein the external module has at least one operating element with which the hearing aid is operated (Warren et al, para 0034: signals are transmitted via the established connection).
Claim 27 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Re Claim 28, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the ear canal module has at least one throughhole which extends from a side of the ear canal module facing the eardrum to a side of the ear canal module facing outwards (Sjursen et al, fig. 6: cable/wire 606 can be adjusted via the through hole of the sound processor circuit/ear canal module/enclosure 602 illustrated in fig. 6; para 0004: adjustable length; para 0032).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, US Patent Pub. 20160277856 A1, Sjursen et al, US Patent Pub. 20090180653 and Warren et al, US Patent Pub. 20080031481 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Watanuki et al, US Patent Pub. 20080025541 A1.
Re Claim 4, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the cable is wound into a spiral shape. However, Watanuki et al discloses a hearing aid device that includes wires in a spiral shape (Watanuki et al, para 0037). It would have been obvious to modify the Chen et al hearing device such that its wire/cables are in a spiral shape as taught in Watanuki et al for the purpose of being able to extendable adjust the cable when necessary.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, US Patent Pub. 20160277856 A1, Sjursen et al, US Patent Pub. 20090180653 and Warren et al, US Patent Pub. 20080031481 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Kaltenbacher et al, US Patent Pub. 20120053393 A1.
Re Claim 9, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 8, but fail to disclose wherein the actuator has a membrane structure, the membrane structure having at least one carrier layer and at least one piezo layer arranged on the carrier layer and comprising at least one piezoelectric material, so that vibrations of the membrane structure can be generated by applying a voltage to the piezo layer. However, Kaltenbacher et al discloses an implantable hearing aid where the sound transducer used for producing sound vibrations includes a membrane wherein the membrane structure includes at least one carrier layer and at least one piezoelectric layer to form a bimorph structure and are therefore disposed and configured such that the membrane structure can be made to vibrate by applying voltage to the piezoelectric layer (Kaltenbacher et al, paras 0002, 0018). It would have been obvious to modify the Chen et al device such that its implantable speaker includes a membrane structure, where the membrane structure includes a carrier layer and a piezoelectric layer, where voltage is applied to the piezoelectric layer to create vibrations as taught in Kaltenbacher et al for the purpose of achieving a deflection via bimorph principle or a deflection being detected by picking up a voltage.
Re Claim 10, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al, Warren et al and Kaltenbacher et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 9, wherein the membrane structure is divided into at least two or more segments by at least one intersecting line intersecting all layers of the membrane structure, so that the membrane structure is mechanically decoupled at the intersecting line (Kaltenbacher et al, para 0011).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, US Patent Pub. 20160277856 A1, Sjursen et al, US Patent Pub. 20090180653 and Warren et al, US Patent Pub. 20080031481 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Larsen et al, US Patent Pub. 20120140963 A1.
Re Claim 11, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the ear canal module has a storage for electrical energy, and wherein the storage is rechargeable. However, Larsen et al discloses a hearing aid device that utilizes a rechargeable battery with its accompanying storage system (Larsen et al, para 0018). It would have been obvious to modify the hearing aid device of Chen et al to include a rechargeable battery with a storage system as taught in Larsen et al for the purpose of being able to recharge the hearing aid system thus being able to maximize battery performance without always having to buy a new battery.
Claims 16-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al, US Patent Pub. 20160277856 A1, Sjursen et al, US Patent Pub. 20090180653 and Warren et al, US Patent Pub. 20080031481 A1, as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Bachler et al, US Patent Pub. 20110280426 A1.
Re Claim 16, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al and Warren et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 15, but fail to disclose wherein the external module comprises a battery, and wherein the battery is rechargeable. However, Bachler et al discloses a hearing aid system where an external device is connected to the hearing aid to provide processed audio signals along with battery provided electrical signals from the external component to the ear canal component of the hearing aid (Bachler et al, para 0019: rechargeable battery within the external unit along with microphone). It would have been obvious to modify the Warren et al device as used to modify Chen et al device to include an external device that can act as a rechargeable battery power source to power the hearing aid device of Chen et al, as taught in Bachler et al for the purpose of being able to transmit audio signal via an optical link to the hearing aid device with other external components.
Re Claim 17, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al, Warren et al and Bachler et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 16, wherein the external module is connectable to the ear canal module via at least one of: a wireless connection, reconnectable detachable, positive, or a nonpositive connection for supplying the ear canal module with electrical energy (Bachler et al, abstract: transmitting electrical energy based on connection of the external device to the hearing aid wherein; whereby the connection will naturally be a positive or a nonpositive connection; with positive and nonpositive connection being selected from the Markush claim language; Warren et al, fig. 3: external source 6; paras 0026, 0028, 0031: external source component can send information signal audio signals just like the external device of Bachler above via wired or wireless links).
Re Claim 18, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al, Warren et al and Bachler et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 16, wherein the external module has at least one ear part shaped so that the at least one ear part is capable of being held by the ear of the person (Bachler et al, para 0019: external unit is a CIC which implies it is shaped to be partially inserted into a user’s ear thus being shaped to be held by user’s ear; Warren et al, fig. 3: external source 6; paras 0026, 0028, 0031: external source component can send information signal audio signals just like the external device of Bachler above via wired or wireless links where a wired connected external audio source could be held by the ear while connectedly mounted).
Claim 21 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 16.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, US Patent Pub. 20160277856 A1, Sjursen et al, US Patent Pub. 20090180653, Warren et al, US Patent Pub. 20080031481 A1, and Bachler et al, US Patent Pub. 20110280426 A1, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Gebert et al, US Patent Pub. 20080095390 A1.
Re Claim 19, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al, Warren et al and Bachler et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 18, but fail to disclose wherein the external module comprises a bracket on which the at least one ear part is located and which is configured so that it can reach over a head of the person. However, Gebert et al discloses a hearing aid device that includes a bracket (Gebert et al, para 0003). It would have been obvious to include a bracket attached the hearing aid as modified by Bachler et al, as taught by Gebert et al for the purpose of being able to better secure the hearing aid device when worn by a user.
Re Claim 20, the combined teachings of Chen et al, Sjursen et al, Warren et al, Bachler et al and Gebert et al disclose the hearing aid according to claim 19, wherein the at least one ear part is sized and shaped or otherwise configured to be placed in one ear canal of the person (Bachler et al, para 0019: external unit is a CIC which implies it is shaped to be partially inserted into a user’s ear thus being shaped to be held by user’s ear).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2/16/2026