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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,398,384, claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,433,079 and claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,729,562. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming a sleeve for a device, a hearing prosthesis sound processor or a behind-the-ear sound processor comprising a main body or the shell that is at least form-fitting to the device or the behind-the-ear sound processor, a first opening or a base opening disposed at the a first end of the main body to receive the device or the behind-the-ear sound processor, and a base member or a base plug configured to be inserted or to seal the first opening or the base opening in the main body, or a second component or a base plug configured to be inserted or to mechanically mate with the main body at the opening.
The limitations in claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,398,384, claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,433,079 and claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,729,562 cover the limitations in claims 1-20 of the present invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 18 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell et al. (US 2011/0002493).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell et al. teaches a sleeve (20) for a device (10) comprising a main body (20, 23 and see paragraph [0023]) that is shaped to be form-fitting to the device (figures 3-6, 8-10), an opening disposed at an end of the main body (20, 23) configured to receive the device (see the opening at the transverse cut to receive the hearing aid device in figures 3, 5, 8, paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0009], and [0028]-[0029]), and a second component (25 and/or 26) configured to mechanically mate with the main body at the opening (see figures 3, 5, 8, the transverse cut, the openings 24 and/or the hinges and paragraphs [0004], [0009]- [0010], [0027]-[0029], figures 3, 5, 7-10).
Regarding claim 18, Campbell et al. teaches the device (10) that is a wearable device (paragraphs [0001] and [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Campbell et al. teaches the device (10) that is a hearing device (paragraphs [0001] and [0021]).
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bewley et al. (US 2012/0189148).
Regarding claim 10, Bewley et al. teaches a sleeve (120, 130, 140, 150, figures 4, 5A, 5B, 6) for a device (20, 21) comprising a main body (120, 130, 150 or 140, 110b) that is at least partially form-fitting to the device (20, 21, figures 4, 5B, 18), an opening (figures 4, 6) disposed at an end of the main body (120, 150 or 140, 110b) configured to receive the device (20, 21, figure 5B), and a second component (140, 110b or 120, 150) configured to mechanically mate with the first opening in the main body (figures 4, 5B, 6, 18).
Regarding claim 11, Bewley et al. teaches the main body (120, 150 or 140, 110b) that includes a base ring (112, paragraph [0046]) surrounding the opening, wherein the base ring (112) is configured to mechanically mate with the second component (120, 150 or 140, 110b, paragraph [0046], figures 4, 5B, 6).
Regarding claim 12, Bewley et al. teaches the second component (120, 150 or 140, 110b) that comprises a base plug (figures 4, 5B, 6) configured to be inserted into the opening in the main body to seal the device in the main body (figure 5B).
Regarding claim 18, Bewley et al. teaches the device (the behind-the-ear hearing device 20, 21) is a wearable device.
Regarding claims 19-20, Bewley et al. teaches that the device (20, 21) is a hearing device, wherein the hearing device (20, 21) is a behind-the-ear sound processor.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2011/0002493).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell et al. teaches a sleeve (20) for a device (10) comprising a main body (20, 23 and see paragraph [0023]) that is at least partially form fitting to the device (figures 3-6, 8-10), a first opening disposed at a first end of the main body (20, 23) configured to receive the device (see the opening at the transverse cut to receive the hearing aid device in figures 3, 5, 8, paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0009], and [0028]-[0029]), and a base member (25 and/or 26) configured to mate or mechanically mate with the first opening (see figures 3, 5, 8, the transverse cut, the openings 24 and/or the hinges and paragraphs [0004], [0010], [0027]-[0029]) in the main body (figures 3, 5, 7-10 and see paragraphs [0005] and [0009]).
Campbell et al. does not specifically teach that the base member (26) is configured to seal the first opening as claimed. However, Campbell does teach the protective glove or envelope (20) encapsulating the hearing aid device (10), and in a substantially closed position such that the back portion of the hearing aid device (10) is covered by the back portion (the base member 26) of the protective glove or envelope (20, paragraph [0024]), and the base member (26) of the protective glove or envelope (20) is configured to cover key openings in the device (10) when the protective glove or envelope (20) in its substantially closed position, thereby preventing moisture infiltration when the sleeve or the protective glove (20) is in its substantially closed position (paragraphs [0001], [0004]-[0005], and [0028], figures 3, 5, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the base member in the hearing aid protection device of Campbell being configured to seal the first opening in the main body of the sleeve for better encapsulating, sealing, better providing a water-proof device and protecting the electronic portions in the hearing device.
Regarding claim 6, Campbell et al. teaches the main body (20, 23) of the sleeve that is formed from a substantially flexible material (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell et al. teaches the device (10) that is a wearable device (paragraphs [0001] and [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell et al. teaches the device (10) that is a hearing device (paragraphs [0001] and [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell teaches the hearing device (10) that is a behind-the-ear hearing device (figures 3, 5, 7, 8-10, paragraphs [0001] and [0021]).
Campbell does not specifically disclose the behind-the-ear hearing aid device (10) that is a behind-the-ear sound processor. However, it is known in the art to provide a sound processor in the hearing aid device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a sound processor or a behind-the-ear sound processor to the device of Campbell for better processing the audio signals in the device.
Regarding claim 12, Campbell et al. teaches the second component comprising a base plug (26). Campbell et al. does not specifically teach that the base plug (26) is configured to be inserted into the opening in the main body (20, 23) to seal the device (10) in the main body as claimed. However, Campbell does teach the protective glove or envelope (20) encapsulating the hearing aid device (10), and in a substantially closed position such that the back portion of the hearing aid device (10) is covered by the back portion (the base member 26) of the protective glove or envelope (20, paragraph [0024]), and the base member (26) of the protective glove or envelope (20) is configured to cover key openings in the device (10) when the protective glove or envelope (20) in its substantially closed position, thereby preventing moisture infiltration when the sleeve or the protective glove (20) is in its substantially closed position (paragraphs [0001], [0004]-[0005], and [0028], figures 3, 5, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the base plug in the hearing aid protection device of Campbell being configured to be inserted into the opening in the main body to seal the device in the main body of the sleeve for better encapsulating, sealing, better providing a water-proof device and protecting the electronic portions in the hearing device.
Regarding claim 20, Campbell teaches the hearing device (10) that is a behind-the-ear hearing device (figures 3, 5, 7, 8-10, paragraphs [0001] and [0021]).
Campbell does not specifically disclose the behind-the-ear hearing aid device (10) that is a behind-the-ear sound processor. However, it is known in the art to provide a sound processor in the hearing aid device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a sound processor or a behind-the-ear sound processor to the device of Campbell for better processing the audio signals in the device.
Claims 2-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2011/0002493) in view of Brimhall et al. (US 2011/0235834), Yanz et al. (US 2008/0260192) and/or Ochsenbein et al. (US 2007/0183612).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell et al. teaches a sleeve for a device (10) comprising a main body (20, 23, paragraph [0023]) and a port area comprising a second opening (21) in the main body (figures 3, 5, 6, 8).
Campbell et al. does not specifically teach that the port area (21) is a plug port area as claimed. However, providing a plug in a port area for a hearing aid device or a behind-the-ear hearing aid device is known in the art.
Brimhall et al., Yanz et al. and/or Ochsenbein et al. teaches a behind-the-ear hearing aid device comprising a plug at the ear hook, the receiver portion or the top portion of the behind-the-ear hearing aid device (120, figures 1, 3, 6 and paragraphs [0028] and in Brimhall et al; 101, 105, 109, figures 1B, 1C, paragraphs [0016]-[0019] in Yanz et al.; and 30, 32, 40, figures 1, 2, 5 in Ochsenbein et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any type of the hearing aid device such as the hearing aid device comprising a plug port area, wherein the plug port area comprises the second opening in the main body configured to receive a plug connecting an external device to the hearing device, as taught by Brimhall et al., Yanz et al. and/or Ochsenbein et al., in the system of Campbell for an alternate choice depending on the type and/or the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Campbell et al. in view of Yanz et al. shows the plug port area comprising a port ring (109 in Yanz et al.) adjacent the second opening (21 in Campbell et al.).
Regarding claim 14, Campbell et al. teaches a main body (20, 23, paragraph [0023]) comprising a port (21, figures 3, 5, 6, 8).
Campbell et al. does not specifically teach that the port (21) is a plug port as claimed. However, providing a plug in a hearing aid device or a behind-the-ear hearing aid device is known in the art.
Brimhall et al., Yanz et al. and/or Ochsenbein et al. teaches a behind-the-ear hearing aid device comprising a plug at the ear hook, the receiver portion or the top portion of the behind-the-ear hearing aid device (120, figures 1, 3, 6 and paragraphs [0028] and in Brimhall et al; 101, 105, 109, figures 1B, 1C, paragraphs [0016]-[0019] in Yanz et al.; and 30, 32, 40, figures 1, 2, 5 in Ochsenbein et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any type of the hearing aid device such as the hearing aid device comprising a plug, as taught by Brimhall et al., Yanz et al. and/or Ochsenbein et al., in the system of Campbell, wherein the port is a plug port for an alternate choice depending on the type and/or the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ho et al. (US 8,416,975) teaches a hearing aid housing including a first behind-the-ear hearing aid housing portion, a second behind-the-ear hearing aid housing portion, and a moisture protector at least partially arranged between the first behind-the-ear hearing aid housing portion, the second behind-the-ear hearing aid housing portion.
Goodman (US 2013/0308898) teaches a body worn sound processor (100) comprising a housing (106), wherein the housing (106) includes a main portion (150), a control portion (152) and a power supply receptacle cover (154) that may be detachably connected to the housing main portion (150).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am-6:00 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (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.
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694 HL
March 18, 2026