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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on April 9, 2026, which has been entered. Claims 1, 2 and 4-14 are pending, with claims 11-14 being withdrawn.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Forrester et al (US 2023/0208193 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Forrester et al teaches (see Figs. 2G and 3) a charging device (350) configured to charge a hearing aid (306), wherein the hearing aid has a hearing aid housing having a side surface (top side 329 and bottom (skin-facing) surface 327, see paras. 0085 and 0091), the hearing aid being an ear level device (a behind-the-ear (BTE)), the charging device comprising: a housing (base 354 and lid 352) having a reception area (insert 364 with central region 367) configured to receive the hearing aid (306), wherein the reception area is configured so that the hearing aid will be lying with the side surface in contact with the reception area during charging (see Fig. 3), a charge supply (inductive charging circuitry, see para. 0097) configured to provide a charge current to the hearing aid, wherein said charge current is provided to the hearing aid as a wireless charge signal (see para. 0098), and said charge supply comprises at least one coil (360) arranged at said reception area (when the case lid 352 is closed, the case coil 360 is at the reception area), the reception area comprising a first retention area (central region 367) configured to engage with a first part of the hearing aid which then guide the hearing aid to have a specific orientation relative to the reception area (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the first retention area comprises a protrusion and/or a groove configured to mechanically engage said first part of the hearing aid (the central region includes a groove, as shown in Fig. 3), the first part of the hearing aid is a sound hook (see Fig. 3), and the side surface (329 or 327) is a surface of the hearing aid configured to face towards the head of a user (bottom, skin-facing, side 327) while the hearing aid is worn or a surface (top surface 329) of the hearing aid configured to be opposite a surface of the hearing aid facing towards the head of the user while the hearing aid is worn (also see paras. 0085-0100).
Regarding claim 2, Forrester et al teaches the charger device according to claim 1, further comprising a magnet arranged at the reception area and configured to provide a magnetic field that intercept a magnetizable component in said hearing aid (see paras. 0036 and 0072).
Regarding claim 7, Forrester et al teaches the charger device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with a device being positioned at the reception area, wherein the communication is wired or wireless (communication and charging circuitry, see paras. 0046 and 0085. The communication circuitry would necessarily be either wired or wireless).
Regarding claim 8, Forrester et al teaches the charger device according to claim 7, wherein the communication interface is configured to communicate interleaved with charging the hearing aid or the communication interface is configured to communicate using a channel different from a charging channel (communication and charging circuitry, see paras. 0046 and 0085. The communication circuitry would necessarily be either interleaved or using a different channel).
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrester et al (US 2023/0208193 A1, previously cited) in view of Jackson et al (US 11,670,962 B2, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Forrester et al as applied to claim 1 have been discussed above.
Forrester et al does not appear to teach wherein the charger device is configured to determine that the hearing aid is in a position to be charged, and that the charger device comprises an output transducer configured to provide haptic feedback upon determination that the hearing aid is in the position to be charged.
Jackson et al teaches (see Fig. 11B) a charger device (storage case 1128) configured to determine that a hearing device (earbuds 1120) is in a position to be charged, wherein the charger device comprises an output transducer configured to provide haptic feedback upon determination that the hearing device is in the position to be charged (see col. 24, lines 46-60).
In view of Jackson et al’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include, with the charger device of Forrester et al, the charger device comprises an output transducer configured to provide haptic feedback upon determination that the hearing device is in the position to be charged, since a haptic output would provide the user an additional notification without the user having to view a display or indicator light (see col. 5, lines 3-6).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrester et al (US 2023/0208193 A1, previously cited) in view of Sjoeroos et al (US 11,700,472 B1, previously cited).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the teachings of Forrester et al as applied to claim 1 have been discussed above.
Forrester et al does not teach (claim 9) further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with an external computer device so as to receive instructions from said external computer device, (claim 10) wherein the external computer device is a smartphone or a personal computer or a server device.
Sjoeroos et al teaches (see Figs. 2-5): A charging device (electronic apparatus 300, wireless charger 400)) configured to charge a hearing device (earbuds 310), further comprising a communication interface (radio 217) configured to communicate with an external computer device (a smartphone, a table computer or laptop, see col. 7, line 54-60) so as to receive instructions from said external computer device (the radio 217 enables the enclosure to transmit and receive data communications, see col. 7, lines 54-60), wherein the external computer device is a smartphone or a personal computer or a server device (a smartphone, a table computer or laptop, see col. 7, line 54-60).
In view of the teachings of Sjoeroos et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include with the charging device of Forrester et al, (claim 9) further comprising a communication interface configured to communicate with an external computer device so as to receive instructions from said external computer device, (claim 10) wherein the external computer device is a smartphone or a personal computer or a server device; in order to provide the charging device with the ability to communicate with other devices that would provide a user interface for data and control purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are 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:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach the charger device according to claim 1, wherein said coil is arranged in a cylindrical or helical shape, and wherein at least part of the reception area is arranged in a volume inside the cylinder or helix.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach the charger device according to claim 1, wherein charge supply comprises a first coil arranged at a lower part of the reception area, and the charge supply further comprises a second coil arranged at a top part of the reception area.
Forrester et al teaches that the charge supply coil (case coil 260, Fig. 2G, or case coil 360, Fig. 3) is provided in the lid of the case. Since Forrester et al intentionally placed the charging coil in the lid, for the reasons stated in paras. 0004, 0032, and 0034, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would not have been motivated to modify Forrester et al to have at least part of the reception area being arranged in a volume inside a cylinder or helix of the coil (as recited in claim 4), or include a coil arranged at a lower part of the reception area in addition to a coil arranged at a top part of the reception area (as recited in claim 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), thus, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed April 09, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sjoeroos et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Forrester et al (as set forth above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the additional references cited on the attached PTO-892, which are also related to chargers for hearing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/JARED FUREMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights