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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grosfilley (US 5610494 A, hereinafter “Grosfilley”).
Regarding claim 1, Grosfilley teaches a wearable device case comprising: (see Claim 1: device 2 for recharging the storage battery of an intra-auricular auditory prothesis)
a base portion, the base portion defining one or more battery wells; (see Fig. 1, Column 3, line 44-64: recesses 12 indented functions as a well for the prostheses 4 to be stored in the base portion, or blocks 11 within box 5)
a lid portion, the lid portion comprising one or more battery well plugs; (see Fig. 1, 2, Column 3, line 44-64: lid 5a includes pads 18 that bear against the prostheses 4 which functions as a plug, which the broadest reasonable interpretation of this is a ‘stopper’)
wherein the lid portion moves between a closed position wherein it is engaged with the base portion and an open position wherein it is disengaged from the base portion to allow access to contents therein; (see Fig. 1,2: the lid portion 5a moves between a closed and open position wherein it engages to the base or box 5)
and wherein the one or more battery well plugs engage with the one or more battery wells when the lid is in the closed position. (see Fig. 1, 2, Column 3, line 44-64: the pads 18 bear against the prostheses 4 in order to ensure the contact when the lid is closed as shown in Fig. 2, which functions as a plug, which the broadest reasonable interpretation of this is a ‘stopper’. )
Regarding claim 2, Grosfilley teaches a hinge mechanism, wherein the hinge mechanism connects the base portion with the lid portion. (see Fig. 1: the casing box 5 with lid 5a is connected by a hinge mechanism where the lid opens on a hinge along the parallel axis of the base box)
Regarding claim 4, Grosfilley teaches one or more battery well plugs comprising a deformable tip. (see Fig. 1, 2, Column 3, line 44-64: lid 5a includes pads 18 of flexible material. The deformable pad 18 acts as a tip to allow for better seal to be formed for the battery element 3 of Grosfilley and thus reads on the claimed “deformable tip”)
Regarding claim 7, Grosfilley teaches the base portion defining a basin, wherein the basin is configured to receive a hearing assistance device. (see Fig. 1, Column 3, line 44-64: recesses 12 indented functions as a well for the prostheses 4 to be stored in the base portion, or blocks 11 within box 5)
Regarding claim 9, Grosfilley teaches the base portion comprising: a shell; and an insert. (see Fig. 1,2, Column 3, line 17-23: holding the block 11 on the plate 8 have the purpose of a shell or insert which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a layer of protection or to place object on)
Regarding claim 10, Grosfilley teaches the base portion comprising: defining from two to ten battery wells; and the lid portion further comprising from two to ten battery well plugs. (see Fig. 1: two recesses 12 indented and two pads 18 on lid portion 5a.)
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 17, the claimed limitations are claims directly corresponding to claims 1, 2, 4, and 7; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 as discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosfilley (US 5610494 A, hereinafter “Grosfilley”)
Regarding claim 3, Grosfilley is silent to a lid portion screws down onto the base portion. However, official notice is taken that using a screw to bind two components of a case is a notoriously well-known practice. Thus, it would have been obvious for one skill in the art to have chosen screwing down the lid portion onto the base portion of the device of Grosfilley to effectively secure the lid portion and the base portion together.
Regarding claim 5, note the discussion of claim 4 above, Column 3 lines 32-34 of Grosfilley teaches that the deformable tip is made of elastomeric material (i.e., pad 18 is made of flexible material). Grosfilley does not limit the pad 18 to be made by any particular type of flexible material and elastomeric material is just one type of well-known flexible material that can allow for better seal to be formed for the battery element 3 of Grosfilley, it would have been obvious that Grosfilley could have used a well-known type of flexible material such as an elastomeric material since it is one of the many well-known flexible material that Grosfilley could have chosen to use to make pad 18 to allow for better seal to be formed for the battery element 3 of Grosfilley.
Regarding claim 6, Grosfilley is silent to the elastomeric material has a Shore A durometer value of 10 to 90. However, it would have been obvious that the designer could have chosen the range of a durometer value of 10 to 90 for a specific preference of flexibility or versatility or based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claims 13, 15, and 16, the claimed limitations are claims directly corresponding to claims 3, 5, and 6; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claims 3, 5, and 6 as discussed above.
Regarding claim 33, Grosfilley is silent to at least one of the battery well plugs is approximately cylindrical, conical, or frustoconical in shape. However, it would have been obvious that the designer could have chosen the shape of the battery well plugs to be approximately cylindrical, conical, or frustoconical based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 34, Grosfilley does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one of the battery well plugs is shaped and configured to form a seal with at least one of the battery wells. However, it would have been obvious that the designer could have chosen the battery well plugs is shaped and configured to form a seal with at least one of the battery wells based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 35, Grosfilley does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the battery well plugs is configured to interface with a surface of a battery when the lid is in the closed position. However, it would have been obvious that the designer could have chosen the battery well plugs is configured to interface with a surface of a battery when the lid is in the closed position based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosfilley (US 5610494 A, hereinafter “Grosfilley”) in view of Vroba (US 5199565 A, hereinafter “Vroba”)
Regarding claim 8, Grosfilley fails to teach one or more battery wells defining an access slot, wherein the access slot is disposed along a side of the one or more battery wells.
Vroba teaches the one or more battery wells defining an access slot, wherein the access slot is disposed along a side of the one or more battery wells. (see Fig. 1: indentation 89 formed in cover 51 act as a well and the battery removal station 80 and 80' which function as the access slot that disposes along the side of the well)
Grosfilley and Vroba are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of storing or casing of a battery and hearing aid/device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Vroba of access slots that are disposed along a side of the battery well to Grosfilley’s battery storage apparatus in order to allow ease of access and disposal of batteries. It is well known in the art to use this mechanism to retain hearing aid batteries in an efficient and accurate manner.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations are claims directly corresponding to claim 8; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 8 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burdon (US 20190181397 A1, hereinafter “Burdon”) in view of Vroba (US 5199565 A, hereinafter “Vroba”)
Regarding claim 21, Burdon teaches a battery case comprising: (see Fig. 1: wearable battery storage apparatus 200)
a base portion, (see [0023]: storage portion 106)
the base portion comprising one or more battery wells, (see Fig. 1, [0022]: chamber 128 having insert or cartridge 130)
and a lid portion, (see Fig. 1: lid 108)
wherein the lid portion moves between a closed position wherein it is engaged with the base portion and an open position wherein it is disengaged from the base portion to allow access to contents therein. (see [0022]: lid 108 moves between an open and closed position and a closure mechanism 114 for permitting the user to selectively close the lid, and thereby, close the battery storage component 104, then open to access contents therein)
However, Burdon fails to teach the one or more battery wells defining an access slot, wherein the access slot is disposed along a side of the one or more battery wells.
Vroba teaches the one or more battery wells defining an access slot, wherein the access slot is disposed along a side of the one or more battery wells, wherein the access slot is disposed along a side of the one or more battery wells, wherein a battery activation tab of a battery is configured to extend through the access slot. (see Fig. 1: indentation 89 formed in cover 51 act as a well and the battery removal station 80 and 80' which function as the access slot that disposes along the side of the well)
Burdon and Vroba are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of storing or casing of a battery and hearing aid/device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Vroba of access slots that are disposed along a side of the battery well to Burdon’s battery storage apparatus in order to allow ease of access and disposal of batteries. It is well known in the art to use this mechanism to retain hearing aid batteries in an efficient and accurate manner.
Burdon in view of Vroba does not explicitly mention wherein a battery activation tab of a battery is configured to extend through the access slot.
However, it would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement to include a battery activation tab based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 27, Burdon fails to teach the one or more battery wells arranged in a circular pattern, wherein the access slots are disposed facing radially outward from the circular pattern of battery wells.
Vroba teaches the one or more battery wells arranged in a circular pattern, wherein the access slots are disposed facing radially outward from the circular pattern of battery wells. (see Fig. 1: indentation 89 formed in cover 51 are arranged radially outward from the circular pattern.)
Burdon and Vroba are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of storing or casing of a battery and hearing aid/device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Vroba of battery wells arranged in a circular pattern wherein the access slots are disposed facing radially outward to Burdon’s battery storage apparatus in order to allow ease of access and disposal of batteries. It is well known in the art to use this mechanism to retain hearing aid batteries in an efficient and accurate manner.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosfilley (US 5610494 A, hereinafter “Grosfilley”) in view of Liu (US 6773842 B2, hereinafter “Liu”)
Regarding claim 32, Grosfilley is silent to the lid is in the closed position, the one or more battery well plugs inhibit the exchange of air with one or more metal- air batteries disposed within the one or more battery wells.
However, Liu teaches the lid is in the closed position, the one or more battery well plugs inhibit the exchange of air with one or more metal- air batteries disposed within the one or more battery wells. (see column 10, line 35-45: closed position allows entry of air into metal-air battery assembly)
Grosfilley and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of storing or casing of a battery and hearing aid/device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Liu of inhibit the exchange of air with one or more metal- air batteries disposed within the one or more battery wells in a closed position to Grosfilley’s battery storage apparatus in order for effective exchange and regulation of air with the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Newly added claims 32-33 are not patentably distinct for the reason as set forth in the new ground rejections as set forth above.
On page 6-8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose wherein the one or more battery well plugs engage with the one or more battery wells when the lid is in the closed position. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Grosfilley clearly teaches wherein the one or more battery well plugs engage with the one or more battery wells when the lid is in the closed position (see Fig. 1, 2, Column 3, line 44-64: the pads 18 bear against the prostheses 4 in order to ensure the contact when the lid is closed as shown in Fig. 2, which functions as a plug, which the broadest reasonable interpretation of this is a ‘stopper’. ) Without limiting the language to require the well plug to be directly engaged with the battery well, Grosfilley teaches this limitation because its well plug is engaged with and functions within the battery well assembly. The current claim language does not require the engagement to be direct or to occur without intervening structure. Accordingly, Grosfilley’s disclosed arrangement accurately reads on the claimed relationship between the well plug and battery well.
On page 8-9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose wherein the one or more battery compartment plugs seal a battery compartment on a hearing assistance device when the lid is in the closed position. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Grosfilley clearly teaches wherein the one or more battery compartment plugs seal a battery compartment on a hearing assistance device when the lid is in the closed position (see Fig. 1, 2, Column 3, line 44-64: the pads 18 bear against the prostheses 4 in order to ensure the contact when the lid is closed as shown in Fig. 2, which functions as a plug, which the broadest reasonable interpretation of this is a ‘stopper’. )
On page 10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose the subject matter of claim 8 and 18. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Grosfilley in view of Vroba teaches the one or more battery wells defining an access slot, wherein the access slot is disposed along a side of the one or more battery wells. (see Fig. 1: indentation 89 formed in cover 51 act as a well and the battery removal station 80 and 80' which function as the access slot that disposes along the side of the well)
On page 10-11 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose wherein a battery activation tab of a battery is configured to extend through the access slot. However, this is a mere mechanical arrangement which would have been obvious that the designer/a person of ordinary skill could have chosen such arrangement to include a battery activation tab based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced. The claimed activation tab exposes an aperture to permit to enter the battery housing for an oxidation reaction represents a straightforward mechanical design choice. The tab simply functions as a movable closure for the airflow aperture, with movement of the tab exposing the aperture and thereby permitting the desired airflow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
