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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Objection to Amendments
The amendments filed 6/10/2026 omitted proper marking for the amendments made. In addition, claim 4 is no longer withdrawn as stated in the Non Final Rejection filed 9/29/2025, please correct the status of the claim.
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 Riehle (NPL : Tri-Axial Telecoil Hearing Aid for Improved Connection to Public Induction Loops).
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 wherein each telecoil has an electrical coil disposed about the corresponding microphone (Rasmussen figure 3 and ¶0082, with BRI, telecoils 60 and 62 are within the same vicinity/housing as microphones 66 and 68, and is considered disposed about the microphones 66 and 68), each telecoil spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing (Rasmussen figure 3, it is implied that telecoils 60 and 62 are “spatially separated” with BRI because they are of different orientation and are separate telecoils, therefore it is inherent that there is some spatial separation), 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 spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing.
Riehle teaches each telecoil spatially separated and disposed at least partially within the housing (Riehle figure 1 and page 98 ¶1, “when the neighboring coils are placed in close proximity” and section B. “DSP algorithm Development,” “combine the audio signals from the three telecoils”).
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 Riehle to improve the known hearing device of Rasmussen to achieve the predictable result of improved sound audibility (Riehle Page 100, section “3) Results”)
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen in view of Riehle teaches the axes of at least two telecoils of the network are parallel, wherein sensitivity of the hearing device is increased (Riehle figure 1, the three telecoil are oriented vertically).
Regarding claim 4, Rasmussen in view of Riehle 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 Riehle (NPL : Tri-Axial Telecoil Hearing Aid for Improved Connection to Public Induction Loops) in further view of Marshall (US 2003/0031339).
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen in view of Riehle teach wherein each telecoil comprises an electrical coil wound about a can of the corresponding microphone (Rasmussen figure 3, 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 Riehle to achieve the predictable result of reducing component size and conserving space in a device
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen in view of Riehle 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 Riehle (NPL : Tri-Axial Telecoil Hearing Aid for Improved Connection to Public Induction Loops) in further view of Klinghult (US 2013/0295850).
Regarding claim 17, Rasmussen in view of Riehle 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 Riehle 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 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of Remarks that Rasmussen in view of Julstrom does not teach the amended claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rasmussen teaches the amended claim with BRI as elaborated in the rejection above. In addition, the new ground of rejection over Rasmussen in view of Riehle clearly teaches the amended claims, as elaborated above. Therefore, the arguments were not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights