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 .
Claims filed 2-13-2026. Claims 21-23 new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5-6-2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application filed on 2-13-2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7,11-13,15-16,19,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers 2020/0288251 in view of Topholm 2008/0152178
Regarding claim 1, Kuipers 2020/0288251discloses a hearing device (Fig 1, hearing device 10, para [99]) comprising: an earmould (Fig 1, earmould/a flexible member 12, para [99] 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, 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 from opening, para [101]),
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, para [99]);
a receiver housing (receiver housing 14B, para [100]) at least partly in the earmould; and
a supporting structure configured to hold 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, para [27, 101]);
Referred to applicant’s Fig 1A, earmould 3 has a front end 5, having a front opening 9, a rear end 7, having a rear opening 10, opposite the front end, and a middle part 8, see applicant’s para [0061], and support structure or securing element 29 comprises a fixation tip 35 attached to the front end of the earmould, see para [0063].
wherein the supporting structure is located away from the rear end of the
earmould (Kuipers 2020/0288251’s Fig 6C discloses the support structure 629 is located away the rear end of the earmould, see Fig 6C below).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuipers 2020/0288251 does not disclose wherein the supporting structure comprises a material that is different from a material of the middle part of the earmould.
However, such as configuration is known in the art, as taught by Topholm 2008/0152178, which discloses a similar hearing device, and further discloses the shell (including the middle part) of the ITE can be made of a photo acrylic material, para [0015]. The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, the modification being as a matter of design, depending on the shape and size of the earpiece, and further as the use of photo acrylic material in particular can be suitable for SLA processing and construction, or other similar 3D printing technologies, see para [0015].
Regarding claim 2, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the middle part (Figs 1, 6, flexible member 612) is configured to at least partially conform to at least a part of an ear canal of the user (flexible member 12 may conform with the shape of the ear canal wall, see para [99]).
Regarding claim 4, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiver housing (Fig 1 receiver housing 14B is configured to accommodate a receiver (receiver 14), para [100]).
Regarding claim 5, Kuipers does not disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the middle part of the earmould is made from an acrylic.
Topholm teaches wherein the middle part of the earmould is made from an acrylic (para [0015] teaches the shell of the ITE can be made of a photo acrylic material). It would obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to element the middle part of the earmould is made from an acrylic as taught by Topholm in Kuipers’s invention. This would allow for an earmould that durable and easy to clean as compared to earmoulds made of soft material.
Regarding claim 7, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein at least part of the supporting structure (Fig 1 shows supporting structure/sealing mechanism 35 is at the front end of the earmould, also see Fig 6c below).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the supporting structure extends from an inside wall of the earmould (Fig 1, the annular ridge of the flexible member 12 is part of an inner wall of the member).
Regarding claim 12, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 11, wherein the part of the supporting structure extending from the inside wall of the earmould is configured to suspend the receiver housing at least partly in the earmould (Fig 1, the receiver housing 14B is suspended in place, aligning the sound conduit with the flexible member/earmould).
Regarding claim 13, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the supporting structure (Fig 1 supporting structure/sealing mechanism 35 is arranged at the front end (front end of earmould/flexible member 12, para [101]) and/or the rear end of the earmould.
Regarding claim 15, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiver housing comprises an interlocking element configured to couple with at least a part of the supporting structure a supporting structure configured to hold 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, para [27, 101]);
Regarding claim 16, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising an active vent (Fig 1 an active vent/vents 36A, 36B para [103] coupled to the receiver housing), wherein the active vent comprises an interlocking element configured to couple with at least a part of the supporting structure (Fig 1, 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, sound conduit wall 33A interlock to couple these elements, effectively coupling the receiver housing relative to the earmould, providing support throughout the assembled structure, para [27, 101]).
Regarding claim 19, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure is configured to at least partially surround the receiver housing (the vent provide 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 of the annular ridge of the flexible member (support structure) surrounds the device housing, para [116]).
Regarding claim 21, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure is closer to the front end than to the rear end of the earmould (Fig 1 shows supporting structure/sealing mechanism 635 is closer to the front end than to the rear end of the earmould, also see Fig 6C below)
PNG
media_image1.png
565
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3,9,17,23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers 2020/0288251 in view of Topholm 2008/0152178 further in view of Gebert 2008/0285783
Regarding claim 3, Kuipers does not disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiver housing is removeable from the earmould.
Gebert teaches wherein the receiver housing is removeable from the earmould (para [40] teaches the receiver 11 can be removed from the ear shell). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the receiver housing is removeable from the earmould as taught by Gebert in Kuiper’s invention as modified by Topholm. This would allow for easy daily cleaning of the receiver and earmold, see Gebert’s para [40].
Regarding claim 9, Kuipers as modified by Topholm does not disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiver housing is removably coupled to the supporting structure.
Gebert teaches wherein the receiver housing is removably coupled to the supporting structure (a bayonet fitting is removably paired with a support structure integrated into an earmould, para [39-40]).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the receiver housing is removably coupled to the supporting structure as taught by Gebert in Kuiper’s invention as modified by Topholm. This would allow for easy daily cleaning of the receiver and earmold, see Gebert’s para [40].
Regarding claim 17, Kuipers discloses the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising an active vent (Fig 1 an active vent/vents 36A, 36B para [103] coupled to the receiver housing) that is removably coupled to the supporting structure (Fig 1, active vents 36A, 36B is place within the earmould coupled to the supporting structure (Fig 1, 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, sound conduit wall 33A interlock to couple these elements, effectively coupling the receiver housing relative to the earmould, providing support throughout the assembled structure, para [27, 101]).
Kuipers does not disclose wherein the receiver housing is removably attached to the supporting structure.
Gebert teaches wherein the receiver housing is removably attached to the supporting structure (a Bayonet fitting is removably paired with a support structure integrated into an earmould, para [39-40].).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the receiver housing is removably attached to the supporting structure as taught by Gebert in Kuipers’s invention as modified by Topholm. This would allow for easy daily cleaning of the receiver and earmold. See Gebert’s para [40].
Regarding claim 23, Kuiper as modified by Topholm fail to teach the claimed limitation as recited in claim 23.
Gebert teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the material of the supporting structure is softer than the 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), para [38]). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuiper as modified by Topholm to include the teachings of Gebert, provide the material of the supporting structure is softer than the material of 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. See Gebert’s para [38].
Claim(s) 6, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers 2020/0288251 in view of Topholm 2008/0152178 further in view of Brander 4729451
Regarding claim 6, Kuipers discloses in Para [126] discloses sealing mechanism 629 may be configured to be deformed inside an ear canal, and when the sealing mechanism is in an un-deformed state, in particular when sealing mechanism 629 is not inserted in an ear canal.
Kuipers does not explicitly disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure comprises silicone rubber, TPE, TPA, EPDM, LSR, or any combination of the foregoing.
Brander teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises silicone rubber (the compliant suspension (which supports a receiver in place once inserted) is made of silicone rubber, col 3 line 57-col 4 line 2). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teaching Kuipers and Topholm to incorporate the teachings of Brander, and provide wherein the supporting structure comprises silicone rubber. This would provide the benefit of a right seal between the earmould and the receiver. See Brander Col 4 lines 60-61.
Regarding claim 20, Kuiper as modified by Topholm fail to teach the claimed limitation as recited in claim 20.
Brander teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the
material of the supporting structure comprises a flexible material (the compliant suspension which supports the receiver in place once insert is made of silicone rubber, col 3 line 57- col 4 line 2) configured to stretch in order 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 line 54-61), and to hold the receiver housing after the receiver housing has been at least partly inserted in the earmoul (the receiver housing is gripping engaged within the earmould, holding it in place, col 4 lines 54-61).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kuiper as modified by Topholm to include the teachings of Brander, and provide wherein the supporting structure comprises a flexible material configured to stretch in order accommodated and the receiver housing. This would provide the benefit of a tight seal between the earmould and the receiver. See Brander’s col 4 line 60-61.
Claim(s) 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers 2020/0288251 in view of Topholm 2008/0152178 further in view of Feeley 2004/0010181
Regarding claim 10, Kuipers as modified by Topholm does not disclose the claimed limitation as recited in claim 10.
Feeley teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure comprises a gripper configured to grip a wire extending from the receiver (Fig 1, wire 22 extends from the receiver 13 through a supporting structure 14 and coupling 23 that both encircle the wire to holds its position, para [73]). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the supporting structure comprises a gripper configured to grip a wire extending from the receiver as taught by Feeley in Kuipers as modified by Topholm’s invention. This would provide the benefit of strain relief to the wire, reducing wear over time.
wherein at least a part of the supporting structure (Fig 1 supporting structure/sealing mechanism 35 is arranged at the front end (front end of earmould/flexible member 12, para [101]) and/or the rear end of the earmould.
Regarding claim 14, Kuipers as modified by Topholm does not disclose the claimed limitation as recited in claim 14
Feeley teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising a wire extending from the receiver housing wherein the supporting structure is configured to at least partially surround the wire (Fig 1, a wire 22 extends from the receiver 13 through a supporting structure 14 and coupling 23 that both encircle the wire to holds its position).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the supporting structure comprises a gripper configured to grip a wire extending from the receiver as taught by Feeley in Kuipers as modified by Topholm’s invention. This would provide the benefit of strain relief to the wire, reducing wear over time.
Claim(s) 8,18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuipers 2020/0288251 in view of Topholm 2008/0152178 further in view of Kuipers EP 3637799A1
Regarding claim 8, Kuipers does not disclose the hearing device according to claim 1 wherein the supporting structure comprises one or more openings.
Kuipers EP 3637799A1 teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises one or more openings (supporting structure/rear support 47, para [40] comprises openings (through holes 49, para [40]).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the supporting structure comprises one or more openings as taught by Kuipers EP 3637799A1 in Kuiper’s invention as modified by Topholm. This would provide the benefit of a hearing device which may accommodate additional components and securely fix the receiver within the earmould cavity. See Kuipers EP 3637799A1’s para [38, 40].
Regarding claim 18, Kuiper as modified by Topholm does not explicitly teach the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure comprises a plurality of supporting elements.
Kuipers EP 3637799A1 teaches wherein the supporting structure comprises a plurality of supporting elements (Figs 6-8, para [39-40] teaches support 45 comprises a front support 46, a rear support 47). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the supporting structure comprises a plurality of supporting elements as taught by Kuipers EP 3637799A1 in Kuiper’s invention as modified by Topholm. This would provide the benefit of a hearing device which may accommodate additional components and securely fix the receiver within the earmould cavity while providing adequate ventilation. See Kuipers EP 3637799A1’s para [38, 40].
Regarding claim 22, Kuiper as modified by Topholm fail to teach the claimed limitation as recited in claim 22.
Kuipers EP 3637799A1 teaches the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure (Figs 6-8, rear support 47, para [40] comprises an opening (through hole 49, para [40] that remains open after the receiver housing is secured with respect to the earmould).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the supporting structure comprises an opening as taught by Kuipers EP 3637799A1 in Kuiper’s invention as modified by Topholm. This would provide the benefit of a hearing device which may accommodate additional components and securely fix the receiver within the earmould cavity while providing adequate ventilation. See Kuipers EP 3637799A1’s para [38, 40].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE X DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0040. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/JULIE X DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights