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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 depends on itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected because it recites the limitation "the metal can.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, does not recite “a metal can.”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites “each telecoil has an electrical coil disposed about at least a portion of each corresponding microphone” which seems to contradict the limitation of claim 1 “each telecoil integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated,” because claim 17 is saying the microphone is attached to the telecoil while claim 1 is saying, the microphone is separate from the telecoil.
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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 2014/0355799) in view of Julstrom (US 7522740).
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen teaches a hearing device comprising: a housing (Rasmussen figure 1, housing 14. ¶0046, “an external input device 12 of the new hearing aid system”); a processor disposed in the housing (Rasmussen figure 3, switch 82, selector 72); a network of telecoils electrically coupled to the processor (Rasmussen figure 3, telecoils 60 and 62), each telecoil integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing (Rasmussen figure 3 and ¶0068, “at least two spaced apart microphones 66, 68" ¶0048, “accommodated within the housing 14 of the device 12”), wherein the network of telecoils improve overall sensitivity of the hearing device (Rasmussen figure 3 and ¶0071, the selector controls the switch 82 to connect the output of the telecoil 62 with maximum reception sensitivity of a magnetic field from a hearing loop to the radio 84 for transmission via the antenna 86 to the input 56 of the hearing aid 40,” ¶0073, “the selector controls connection of the output of the telecoil with maximum reception sensitivity of a magnetic field from a hearing loop to the radio 84 for transmission via the antenna 86 to the input 56 of the hearing aid 40”), however does not explicitly teach each telecoil integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing.
Julstrom teaches each telecoil (Julstrom figure 31 and Col 21 lines 48-64, “vertically oriented telecoil such as telecoil 3180, that may be contained within ITE type hearing aid 3170”) integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated (Julstrom figure 35 Fig. 35 array microphone 3530) and disposed at least partially within the housing (Julstrom figures 34A-34B and Col 23 line 51-Col 24 line 2, “the receiving telecoil located within the respective BTE type hearing aid, with uniform magnetic coupling strength over a range of possible telecoil positions within the BTE hearing aid housing,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Julstrom to improve the known hearing device of Rasmussen to achieve the predictable result of an improved field strength at greater distance (Julstrom Col 2 lines 3-27).
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen in view of Julstrom teaches the axes of at least two telecoils of the network are parallel, wherein sensitivity of the hearing device is increased (Julstrom figure 9A-9B, Col 10 lines 32-45, “The primarily vertical orientation of BTE hearing aid 910B permits telecoil 905B to be vertically oriented and of greater length and sensitivity than that in the ITE hearing aid of FIG. 9A”).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen in view of Julstrom teaches the axes of at least two telecoils of the network are non-parallel, wherein directional sensitivity dependence of the network of telecoils is decreased (Rasmussen figure 3, coils 60 and 62, wherein the sensitivity depends on the location of the source in relevance to the coils).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 2014/0355799) in view of Julstrom (US 7522740) in further view of Marshall (US 2003/0031339).
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen in view of Julstrom teach wherein each telecoil comprises an electrical coil wound about a can of the corresponding microphone (Julstrom figures 34A-34B and Col 23 line 51-Col 24 line 2, “the receiving telecoil located within the respective BTE type hearing aid, with uniform magnetic coupling strength over a range of possible telecoil positions within the BTE hearing aid housing,” with BRI, can of a corresponding microphone can be the telecoil can that is in connection with the microphone), however does not explicitly teach a metal can.
Marshall teaches wherein each telecoil comprises an electrical coil wound about the metal can of the corresponding microphone (Marshall figures 1-3B and ¶0058 “the ends 18 and 20 of the telecoil 12 are soldered to the substrate 16,” wherein the SMD substrate can be considered a part of a housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known connection techniques of Marshall to improve the known hearing aid of Rasmussen in view of Julstrom to achieve the predictable result of reducing component size and conserving space in a device
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen in view of Julstrom in further view of Marshall teaches the electrical circuit is configured to output a signal, based on a signal from the acoustic transducer or the network of telecoils or a blend of both the network of telecoils and the acoustic transducer, to a contact of the external-device interface (Marshall ¶0060, “the telecoil 12 would be cemented directly to the substrate 16, and the ends 18 and 20 would be electrically connected through the substrate 16 to allow external components to receive the current signal generated by the telecoil 12” and ¶0059, “The substrate 16 also provides electrical connections between the telecoil 12 and the integrated circuit 14 and electrical connections from the integrated circuit 14 to external components”).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 2014/0355799) in view of Julstrom (US 7522740) in further view of Klinghult (US 2013/0295850).
Regarding claim 17, Rasmussen in view of Julstrom does not explicitly teach wherein each telecoil has an electrical coil disposed about at least a portion of each corresponding microphone.
Klinghult teaches wherein each telecoil has an electrical coil disposed about at least a portion of each corresponding microphone (Klinghult figure 2A, and ¶0036, telecoil 116 is directly connected in parallel with microphone element 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Klinghult to improve the known hearing device of Rasmussen in view of Julstrom to achieve the predictable result of reducing unwanted environmental noise (Klinghult ¶0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to 1) overcome the claim objection and 2) in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant stated on page 6 of remarks that claim 1 has been amended with portions of allowable claim 2, however no amendments were made in the claims filed 12/30/2025. Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks that the office action admits that Rasmussen fails to teach “each telecoil integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, the Non-final rejection filed 9/29/2025 clearly shows the limitations were taught by Rasmussen :
each telecoil integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing (Rasmussen figure 3 and ¶0068, “at least two spaced apart microphones 66, 68" ¶0048, “accommodated within the housing 14 of the device 12”). Examiner relied on Julstrom to further support teaching the limitation. Applicant also argues that Julstrom does not teach said limitation because figures 34A-34B and cited portions Col 23-24 of Julstrom describes a telecoil that is not integrated with a corresponding microphone. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Julstrom clearly teaches each telecoil (Julstrom figure 31 and Col 21 lines 48-64, “vertically oriented telecoil such as telecoil 3180, that may be contained within ITE type hearing aid 3170”) integrated with a corresponding microphone spatially separated (Julstrom figure 35 array microphone 3530) and disposed at least partially within the housing (Julstrom figures 34A-34B and Col 23 line 51-Col 24 line 2, “the receiving telecoil located within the respective BTE type hearing aid, with uniform magnetic coupling strength over a range of possible telecoil positions within the BTE hearing aid housing,”). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
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 extension fee 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 NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693