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 Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for application 18/110,675 on 04/10/2026. Please note claims 1-20 and 22-26 remain in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 24 (and dependent claims) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes, however, that the arguments are directed solely to Fig. 2 of Kuipers, EP 3637799 (hereinafter Kuipers EP), whereas the rejection dated 02/11/2026 (and the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 24 provided later in this office action) additionally relies upon ¶[0038] of Kuiper EP’s disclosure, which describes Figs. 1 and 2 in detail. Specifically, the disclosure recites:
Transducer housing (40) comprises a rear wall (43) facing rear opening (34). Rear wall (43) is provided at a distance to rear opening (34), in particular at a distance larger or equal to one third of the cavity length of cavity (35).
For illustrative purposes, these relative distances for this minimum cavity length have been indicated in the modified and annotated Fig. 2 below. As shown, if the distance between the rear wall of the transducer housing and the rear opening of the earmould (as indicated by the leftmost dashed line) is 1/3 of the cavity length, then the entirety of supporting structure (47) is in the rear half of the earmould (delineated by the rightmost dashed line), and therefore an entirety (and by extension at least a majority) of the supporting structure and the segment of the transducer housing that it contacts is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould.
[AltContent: textbox (Minimum cavity length per ¶[0038])][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
589
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kuipers EP Fig. 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers (hereinafter Kuipers US), US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0288251 (previously cited), in view of Kuipers (hereinafter Kuipers EP), European Patent Publication number EP 3637799 A1 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kuipers discloses, as shown in Fig. 1, a hearing device (¶[0099], lines 1-2) comprising: an earmould (A flexible member (earmold) (12) conforms to the ear canal wall.....¶[0099], lines 13-17) having a front end (right-facing side), a rear end (left-facing side), and a middle part between the front end and a rear end (the part between the two sides), the front end comprising a front opening, and the rear end comprising a rear opening (A sound conduit (30) is passed through the left-side rear opening of the earmould to couple to the right side front opening.....¶[0101], lines 28-30), wherein the front end of the earmould is configured to face a tympanic membrane of a user during use (The right side front opening faces tympanic membrane (26).....¶[0099], lines 4-8), the rear opening being in fluid communication with an outside of an ear canal of the user (The rear opening is fluid contact with the opening of the ear, outside of an ear canal.....¶[0099], lines 19-23);
a receiver housing accommodating a receiver (A receiver housing (14B) may accommodate a receiver (14).....¶[0100], lines 7-9), wherein the receiver housing has a first end (the right side) and a second end opposite from the first end (the left side), wherein the front opening of the earmould is closer to the first end of the receiver housing than to the second end of the receiver housing (shown in Fig. 1);
a sound passage extending between the front opening of the earmould and the rear end of the earmould (A sound conduit (30) with vents (36A, 36B) to outside the ear is passed through the left-side rear opening of the earmould to couple to the right side front opening.....¶[0101], lines 28-30);
an active vent (Vents 36A, 36B, are actively controlled by valve 39.....¶[0103], lines 6-10) located between the second end of the receiver housing and the front opening of the earmould (shown in Fig. 1), wherein when the active vent is in an open state, the active vent allows sound transmission through the sound passage (An open state allows transmission through the sound passage to the outer ear.....¶[0103], lines 15-17), and wherein when the active vent is in a closed state, the active vent hinders the sound transmission through the sound passage (A closed state prevents transmission through the sound passage to the outer ear.....¶[0103], lines 10-13); and
a supporting structure configured to maintain the receiver housing in place with respect to the earmould (Sealing mechanism (35) of the sound conduit interlocks with an annular ridge on the interior of flexible member (12) to couple the elements, likewise, receiver housing (14B) and sound conduit wall (33A) interlock to couple these elements, effectively coupling the receiver housing relative to the earmould, providing support throughout the assembled structure.....¶[0101], lines 28-34, ¶[0027], lines 1-3).
Kuipers does not disclose wherein the receiver housing is at least partly in the earmould, wherein the rear opening of the earmould is closer to the second end of the receiver housing than to the first end of the receiver housing, wherein the supporting structure is configured to interface with a planar surface of the receiver housing at least at a location that is closer to the second end of the receiver housing than to the first end of the receiver housing, wherein an entirety of the supporting structure is inside the earmould, or wherein a majority of the supporting structure is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould.
Kuipers EP teaches (as shown in Fig. 2) a hearing device (21) wherein a receiver housing (transducer housing, (40).....¶[0038], lines 1-2) is at least partly in the earmould (cavity (35) of earmould housing (22).....¶[0038], line 3), wherein a rear opening of the earmould (34) is closer to the second end of the receiver housing (43) than the first end of the receiver housing (42), wherein a supporting structure (rear support (47).....¶[0039], lines 13-14) interfaces with a planar surface (The rear side of the acoustic transducer.....¶[0039], line 14) of the receiver housing (40) at a location closer to the second end of the receiver housing than to the first end of the receiver housing (rear support (47) interfaces with the planar second end of receiver housing (43) .....¶[0039], line 14), wherein an entirety of the supporting structure (rear support, 47) is inside the earmould (cavity (35)), and wherein a majority of the supporting structure is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould (The second end of the receiver housing (43) to which the supporting structure (47) connects may be provided at a distance equal to one third of the length of the earmould away from the rear opening, resulting in the support structure being located in the rear end of the earmould.....¶[0038], lines 6-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kuipers to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers EP, and provide an earmould body of greater length, resulting in the rear opening of the earmould is closer to the second end of the receiver housing than to the first end of the receiver housing, wherein the supporting structure is configured to interface with a planar surface of the receiver housing at least at a location that is closer to the second end of the receiver housing than to the first end of the receiver housing, wherein an entirety of the supporting structure is inside the earmould, or wherein a majority of the supporting structure is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould. This would provide the benefit of a hearing device which may accommodate additional components and securely fix the receiver within the earmould cavity while also providing adequate ventilation (Kuipers EP, ¶[0038], lines 8-12, ¶[0040], lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the middle part of the earmould is configured to conform to a user’s ear canal.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the middle part of the earmould (flexible member 612 shown in Fig. C) is configured to at least partially conform to at least a part of the ear canal of the user (Flexible member 12 may conform with the shape of the ear canal wall.....Para [0099], lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the receiver housing comprises the active vent.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the receiver housing comprises the active vent (The vent provided to the sound conduit and the receiver may be contained within a single device housing.....Para [0116], lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the active vent is coupled to the receiver housing.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the active vent is coupled to the receiver housing (the receiver housing is coupled to the sound conduit housing which is comprised of the active vent.....Para [0023], lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the active vent is held in place within the earmould by at least a part of the supporting structure.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the active vent is held in place within the earmould by at least a part of the supporting structure (The vent is provided to the sound conduit, which is coupled in place to the earmould as explained in the rejection of claim 1…..¶[0101], lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein at least part of the supporting structure is at the front end of the earmould.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein at least part of the supporting structure is at the front end of the earmould (Shown in Fig. 1, the annular ridge which couples the earmould to the sound conduit is at the front end of the earmould).
Regarding claim 11, Kuipers discloses, as shown in Fig. 1, a hearing device (¶[0099], lines 1-2) comprising: an earmould (A flexible member (earmold) (12) conforms to the ear canal wall.....¶[0099], lines 13-17) having a front end (right-facing side), a rear end (left-facing side), and a middle part between the front end and a rear end (the part between the two sides), the front end comprising a front opening, and the rear end comprising a rear opening (A sound conduit (30) is passed through the left-side rear opening of the earmould to couple to the right side front opening.....¶[0101], lines 28-30), wherein the front end of the earmould is configured to face a tympanic membrane of a user during use (The right side front opening faces tympanic membrane (26).....¶[0099], lines 4-8), the rear opening being in fluid communication with an outside of an ear canal of the user (The rear opening is fluid contact with the opening of the ear, outside of an ear canal.....¶[0099], lines 19-23);
a receiver housing accommodating a receiver (A receiver housing (14B) may accommodate a receiver (14).....¶[0100], lines 7-9), wherein the receiver housing has a first end (the right side) and a second end opposite from the first end (the left side), wherein the front opening of the earmould is closer to the first end of the receiver housing than to the second end of the receiver housing (shown in Fig. 1);
a sound passage extending at least between the front opening of the earmould and the rear end of the earmould (A sound conduit (30) with vents (36A, 36B) to outside the ear is passed through the left-side rear opening of the earmould to couple to the right side front opening.....¶[0101], lines 28-30);
an active vent (Vents 36A, 36B, are actively controlled by valve 39.....¶[0103], lines 6-10) located between the second end of the receiver housing and the front opening of the earmould (shown in Fig. 1), wherein when the active vent is in an open state, the active vent allows sound transmission through the sound passage (An open state allows transmission through the sound passage to the outer ear.....¶[0103], lines 15-17), and wherein when the active vent is in a closed state, the active vent hinders the sound transmission through the sound passage (A closed state prevents transmission through the sound passage to the outer ear.....¶[0103], lines 10-13); and
a supporting structure configured to maintain the receiver housing in place with respect to the earmould (Sealing mechanism (35) of the sound conduit interlocks with an annular ridge on the interior of flexible member (12) to couple the elements, likewise, receiver housing (14B) and sound conduit wall (33A) interlock to couple these elements, effectively coupling the receiver housing relative to the earmould, providing support throughout the assembled structure.....¶[0101], lines 28-34, ¶[0027], lines 1-3).
Kuipers does not disclose wherein the supporting structure comprises one or more openings, wherein the one or more openings extending through a thickness of the supporting structure being different from the front opening and from the rear opening, or wherein an entirety of the supporting structure with the one or more openings is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould.
Kuipers EP teaches a hearing device wherein a supporting structure (Rear support (47).....¶[0040], lines 6-7) comprises openings (Through holes (49).....¶[0040], lines 10-11), extending through a thickness of the supporting structure (The holes are through holes (through the thickness)), wherein the openings are different from the front opening and from the rear opening (Shown in Fig. 2, through holes (49) are distinct from the front (33) and rear opening (34)), and wherein the entirety of the supporting structure with the one or more openings is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould (The second end of the receiver housing (43) to which the supporting structure (47) connects may be provided at a distance equal to one third of the length of the earmould away from the rear opening, resulting in the entirety of the support structure being located in the rear end of the earmould.....¶[0038], lines 6-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kuipers to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers EP, and provide wherein the supporting structure comprises one or more openings, wherein the one or more openings extending through a thickness of the supporting structure being different from the front opening and from the rear opening, and wherein an entirety of the supporting structure with the one or more openings is located closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould. This would provide the benefit of a hearing device which may accommodate additional components and securely fix the receiver within the earmould cavity while also providing adequate ventilation (Kuipers EP, ¶[0038], lines 8-12, ¶[0040], lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the supporting structure comprises an inner wall of the earmould.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises an inner wall of the earmould (The annular ridge of the flexible member 12 is part of an inner wall of the member as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein at least part of the supporting structure extends from an inside wall of the earmould.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises an inner wall of the earmould (The annular ridge of the flexible member protrudes from the inner wall of the member as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the supporting structure is configured to at least partially surround the receiver housing.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the supporting structure is configured to at least partially surround the receiver housing (The vent provided to the sound conduit and the receiver may be contained within a single device housing (which acts as sound conduit and receiver housing), in which case the annular ridge of the flexible member (support structure) surrounds the device housing.....Para [0116], lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the supporting structure shown is configured to suspend the receiver housing that is at least partly in the earmould.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the supporting structure shown is configured to suspend the receiver housing that is at least partly in the earmould (Shown in Fig. 1, the receiver housing is suspended in place, aligning the sound conduit with the flexible member (earmould). This relationship would be unchanged even using the encompassing earmould provided by Gebert).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the active vent comprises a valve forming a part of the sound passage.
Kuipers additionally teaches wherein the active vent comprises a valve forming a part of the sound passage. (Fig. 1 shows a vent valve (39) within the sound passage.....¶[0102], lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 24, Kuipers discloses, as shown in Fig. 1, a hearing device (¶[0099], lines 1-2) comprising: an earmould (A flexible member (earmold) (12) conforms to the ear canal wall.....¶[0099], lines 13-17) having a front end (right-facing side), a rear end (left-facing side), and a middle part between the front end and a rear end (the part between the two sides), the front end comprising a front opening, and the rear end comprising a rear opening (A sound conduit (30) is passed through the left-side rear opening of the earmould to couple to the right side front opening.....¶[0101], lines 28-30), wherein the front end of the earmould is configured to face a tympanic membrane of a user during use (The right side front opening faces tympanic membrane (26).....¶[0099], lines 4-8), the rear opening being in fluid communication with an outside of an ear canal of the user (The rear opening is fluid contact with the opening of the ear, outside of an ear canal.....¶[0099], lines 19-23);
a receiver housing accommodating a receiver (A receiver housing (14B) may accommodate a receiver (14).....¶[0100], lines 7-9), wherein the receiver housing has a first end (the right side) and a second end opposite from the first end (the left side), wherein the front opening of the earmould is closer to the first end of the receiver housing than to the second end of the receiver housing (shown in Fig. 1);
a sound passage extending at least between the front opening of the earmould and the rear end of the earmould (A sound conduit (30) with vents (36A, 36B) to outside the ear is passed through the left-side rear opening of the earmould to couple to the right side front opening.....¶[0101], lines 28-30);
an active vent (Vents 36A, 36B, are actively controlled by valve 39.....¶[0103], lines 6-10) located between the second end of the receiver housing and the front opening of the earmould (shown in Fig. 1), wherein when the active vent is in an open state, the active vent allows sound transmission through the sound passage (An open state allows transmission through the sound passage to the outer ear.....¶[0103], lines 15-17), and wherein when the active vent is in a closed state, the active vent hinders the sound transmission through the sound passage (An open state allows transmission through the sound passage to the outer ear.....¶[0103], lines 10-13); and
a supporting structure configured to maintain the receiver housing in place with respect to the earmould (Sealing mechanism (35) of the sound conduit interlocks with an annular ridge on the interior of flexible member (12) to couple the elements, likewise, receiver housing (14B) and sound conduit wall (33A) interlock to couple these elements, effectively coupling the receiver housing relative to the earmould, providing support throughout the assembled structure.....¶[0101], lines 28-34, ¶[0027], lines 1-3).
Kuipers does not disclose wherein the supporting structure is configured to surround at least a majority of a circumference of a longitudinal segment of the receiver housing, the longitudinal segment being closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould, or wherein at least a majority of the receiver housing is in the earmould.
Kuipers EP teaches, as shown in Fig. 2, a hearing device wherein a supporting structure (rear support (47)) is configured to surround at least a majority of a circumference of a longitudinal segment of the receiver housing (Shown in Fig. 5, rear support (47) fully encompasses an entire circumference of receiver housing (40) at a longitudinal segment originating from the rear wall (43).....¶[0040], lines 16-17), the longitudinal segment being closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould (The second end of the receiver housing (43) to which the supporting structure (47) connects may be provided at a distance equal to one third of the length of the earmould away from the rear opening, resulting in the entirety of the support structure and the longitudinal segment to which it encompasses being located in the rear end of the earmould.....¶[0038], lines 6-8), and wherein at least a majority of the receiver housing is in the earmould (Receiver housing (40) is fully placed within earmould cavity (35)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Kuipers to incorporate the teachings of Kuipers EP, and provide wherein the supporting structure is configured to surround at least a majority of a circumference of a longitudinal segment of the receiver housing, the longitudinal segment being closer to the rear end of the earmould than to the front end of the earmould, or wherein at least a majority of the receiver housing is in the earmould. This would provide the benefit of a hearing device which may accommodate additional components and securely fix the receiver within the earmould cavity while also providing adequate ventilation (Kuipers EP, ¶[0038], lines 8-12, ¶[0040], lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 24, including wherein the support structure is configured to contact the second end of the receiver housing (Shown in Fig. 2 of Kuipers EP and explained in the rejection of claim 24, the rear support (47) surrounds the rear (second) end of the receiver housing (43)).
Claims 3, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers in view of Kuipers EP in further view of Gebert et al (hereinafter Gebert), US-PG-PUB No. 2008/0285783 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the receiver housing is removable from the earmould.
Gebert teaches wherein the receiver housing is removable from the earmould (¶[0040], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Gebert, and provide wherein the receiver housing is removable from the earmould. This would allow for easy daily cleaning of the receiver and earmold (Gebert, ¶[0040], lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein part of the supporting structure comprises a material softer than the middle part of the earmould.
Gebert teaches wherein at least part of the supporting structure comprises a material that is softer than a material of the middle part of the earmould (A seal that’s relatively soft as compared to the outer shell (earmould) may be provided as part of the receiver connecting piece (supporting structure).....¶[0038], lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Gebert, and provide wherein part of the supporting structure comprises a material softer than the middle part of the earmould. This relatively softer piece would provide the benefit of allowing the force required to remove the receiver housing from the earmould to be adjusted (Gebert, ¶[0038], lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the receiver housing is removably attached to the supporting structure.
Gebert teaches wherein a receiver housing is removably attached to a supporting structure (A bayonet fitting is removably paired with a support structure integrated into an earmould…..¶[0039], lines 1-¶[0040], lines 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Gebert, and provide wherein the receiver housing is removable from the support structure. This would allow for easy daily cleaning of the receiver and earmold (Gebert, ¶[0040], lines 9-10).
Claims 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers in view of Kuipers EP in further view of Brander et al (hereinafter Brander), US Patent No. 4,729,451 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the middle part of the earmould is made from an acrylic.
Brander teaches wherein the middle part of the earmould is made from an acrylic (The shell (including the middle part) of an earmould may be acrylic…..Col. 3, lines 23-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to include the teachings of Brander, and provide wherein the middle part of the earmould is made from an acrylic. This would allow for an earmould that is durable and easy to clean as compared to earmoulds made of soft materials.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the supporting structure comprises silicone rubber.
Brander teaches wherein a supporting structure comprised of silicone rubber (The compliant suspension (which supports a receiver in place once inserted) is ideally made of silicone rubber…..Col. 3, lines 57 – Col. 4, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Brander, and provide wherein the supporting structure comprises silicone rubber. This would provide the benefit of a tight seal between the earmould and the receiver (Brander, Col. 4, lines 60-61).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the supporting structure comprises a flexible material configured to stretch in order accommodate and the receiver housing.
Brander teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises a flexible material (The compliant suspension (which supports the receiver in place once inserted) is ideally made of silicone rubber…..Col. 3, lines 57 – Col. 4, line 2) configured to stretch in order to allow the supporting structure to accommodate the receiver housing during insertion of the receiver housing at least partly in the earmould (The sound channel expands (stretches) to receive the acoustic output port of a receiver housing…..Col. 4, lines 54-61), and to hold the receiver housing after the receiver housing has been at least partly inserted within the earmould (The receiver housing is grippingly engaged within the earmould, holding it in place…..Col. 4, lines 54-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to include the teachings of Brander, and provide wherein the supporting structure comprises a flexible material configured to stretch in order accommodate and the receiver housing. This would provide the benefit of a tight seal between the earmould and the receiver (Brander, Col. 4, lines 60-61).
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers in view of Kuipers EP in further view of Feeley et al (hereinafter Feeley), US-PG-PUB 2004/0010181 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the supporting structure comprises a gripper configured to grip a wire extending from the receiver.
Feeley teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises a gripper configured to grip a wire extending from the receiver (shown in fig. 1, a wire 22 extends from the receiver 13 through a supporting structure 14 and coupling 23 that both encircle the wire to hold its position.....Para [0073], lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Feeley, and provide wherein the supporting structure comprises a gripper configured to grip a wire extending from the receiver. This would provide the benefit of strain relief to the wire, reducing wear over time.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the support structure is configured to contact the second end of the receiver housing.
Feeley teaches wherein the support structure is configured to contact the second end of the receiver housing (Shown in Fig. 10, receiver (13) is supported by speaker fastener from the rear….. ¶[0041], lines 1-3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Feeley, and provide wherein the support structure is configured to contact the second end of the receiver housing. This would provide the benefit of a support structure which protects the receiver from environmental moisture and the like (Feeley, ¶[0041], lines 14-16).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers in view of Kuipers EP in further view of Pedersen et. al (hereinafter Pedersen) US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0253793 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the receiver housing comprises a biometric sensor.
Pedersen teaches within fig. 4 wherein the receiver (transducer) 41 housing (capsule) 40 comprises a biometric sensor 42 (Para [0144], lines 1-4) (Para [0158], lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen, and provide wherein the receiver housing comprises a biometric sensor. This would allow for a hearing device that gauges overall health and metabolism during exercise, athletic training, dieting, daily life activities, sickness, and physical therapy (Pederson, ¶[0030]).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers in view of Kuipers EP in further view of Trine et. al (hereinafter Trine) US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0057528 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the rear opening at the rear end of the earmould is between a wall of the earmould and a part of the support structure.
Trine teaches a rear opening at the rear end of an earmould between a wall of the earmould and a part of the support structure (Shown in Fig. 3, receiver housing (11) is provided to an opening at the distal end (rear) of the earmould, and is located between the walls of the earmould (100).....¶[0011], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Trine and provide wherein the rear opening at the rear end of the earmould is between a wall of the earmould and a part of the support structure. This would provide the additional benefit of allowing for controlled acoustic paths through the earmould (Trine, ¶[0012], lines 5-6).
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers in view of Kuipers EP in further view of Trine.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP, as explained above, teach the hearing device of claim 24, but fail to teach wherein the rear opening at the rear end of the earmould is between a wall of the earmould and a part of the support structure.
Trine teaches a rear opening at the rear end of an earmould between a wall of the earmould and a part of the support structure (Shown in Fig. 3, receiver housing (11) is provided to an opening at the distal end (rear) of the earmould, and is located between the walls of the earmould (100).....¶[0011], lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kuipers and Kuipers EP to incorporate the teachings of Trine and provide wherein the rear opening at the rear end of the earmould is between a wall of the earmould and a part of the support structure. This would provide the additional benefit of allowing for controlled acoustic paths through the earmould (Trine, ¶[0012], lines 5-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Widmer et al, US Patent No. 6,484,842 teaches supporting structures for receivers within earmolds deemed relevant to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6:30 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights