DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Interview Invitation
In the examiner’s opinion, an interview with the examiner might be productive in this particular case. As applicant is preparing a response, applicant is invited to reach out (at 571-270-7376) to set up such an interview. An interview is certainly not required, but the examiner thinks an interview might be productive in this particular case.
Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 14, 2025 is acknowledged.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration because the claim amendments of 7/14/2025 make all claims part of Group I.
Claim Objection
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim begins with the word “method” (lowercase), with no definite or indefinite article preceding the word “method”. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write “The method” at the start of claim 18.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim begins with the word “method” (lowercase), with no definite or indefinite article preceding the word “method”. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write “The method” at the start of claim 19.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim begins with the word “method” (lowercase), with no definite or indefinite article preceding the word “method”. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant merely made a typographical mistake and intended to write “The method” at the start of claim 20.
Prior Art Naming
In this office action, the examiner uses DE20021124U1 as a piece of prior art. No inventor is listed for this German document. Instead, “Jump Health CO K [TW]” is listed as the applicant. The examiner will thus refer to this document as “DE20021124U1 by Jump”.
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.
Claims 8 and 17-18 are 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 8 recites “a first shape that is configured to match a first half of the device” and “a second shape that is configured to match a second half of the device”. This use of the word “match” makes claim 8 unclear. One definition of “match” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “something or someone that strongly resembles another”. However, whether or not a first thing strongly resembles a second thing is of course subjective. Applicant’s Figure 5B, for example, illustrates a cleaning cavity that has an outline that may be considered to resemble an outline of an earbud, but this cavity is not an earbud. The cavity is larger than an earbud (such that an earbud can be inserted into said cavity). An outline of a thing may not be considered to match said thing, as an outline is different from an actual thing. Applicant’s specification thus does not provide much guidance on how to interpret the word “match” in claim 8. Most importantly, as discussed, whether or not a first thing strongly resembles a second thing is subjective. In other words, someone reading claim 8 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my wall shape can be considered to match a half of a to-be-cleaned device? How similar do they need to be in order to match?”
Claim 17 recites “the fluid supply”, but it is not clear if this phrase refers to the “a fluid supply” recited in line 14 of claim 16 or to the “a fluid supply” of line 17 of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 7,207,342 to Daniels.
With regard to claim 12, Daniels teaches a method of cleaning a device (Abstract; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). Daniels illustrates a pacifier (item 80 in Figure 3) as the to-be-cleaned device, but Daniels teaches that other items (instead of a pacifier) could also be cleaned with the method (Col. 5, 28-34). Daniels’s method uses a fixture comprising at least one fixture body configured to define an inner cleaning cavity bounded by at least one inner cleaning cavity wall, wherein the at least one inner cleaning cavity wall comprises inner wall 70 in Figures 2 and 3 (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). The inner wall 70 comprises a plurality of cleaning cavity ports (items 74 in Figures 2 and 3; Col. 4, lines 43-51). The at least one inner cleaning cavity wall also comprises a bottom wall (item 28 in Figures 2 and 3), and this bottom wall define an output opening (item 66 in Figure 5) such that used cleaning liquid can move downward into a waste liquid repository (item 64 in Figures 2 and 3; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 4, line 42). In the method of Daniels, the inner cleaning cavity is configured to receive cleaning liquid via the plurality of cleaning cavity ports 74 and permit the cleaning liquid to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening 66 (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). The method of Daniels comprises placing the to-be-cleaned device into the inner cleaning cavity, introducing the cleaning liquid into the inner cleaning cavity via each of the plurality of cleaning cavity ports, and allowing the cleaning liquid to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34).
With regard to claim 14, the method of Daniels involves introducing the cleaning liquid into the inner cleaning cavity via each of the plurality of cleaning cavity ports and allowing the used cleaning liquid to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening 66 (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). In the method of Daniels, there is some first period of time during which some amount of the cleaning liquid is introduced into inner cleaning cavity, wherein that first period of time ends prior to that amount of cleaning liquid exiting (via the output opening 66) the inner cleaning cavity.
With regard to claim 15, in the method of Daniels, the fixture can be considered to comprise at least one fixture body that includes a first fixture body (comprising inner wall 70 in Figure 3) and a second fixture body (comprising lid 46 in Figure 3; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0220385 by Gil in view of U.S. 2007/0022549 by Siegle.
With regard to claim 1, Gil teaches a method of cleaning an earpiece (reads on earbud) of a hearing aid, wherein the method comprises placing the earpiece into a cleaning cavity (item 12 in Figure 2) of a fixture and supplying a cleaning liquid to the cleaning cavity to clean the earpiece (Abstract; Par. 0045-0068). Gil teaches that the cleaning of the earpiece with the cleaning liquid results in the desired removal of ear wax therefrom (Par. 0021, 0029, 0054, 0055, and 0067).
Gil does not teach that the cleaning liquid comprises alcohol.
Siegle teaches that a cleaning liquid comprising isopropyl alcohol and hydrogen peroxide can successfully be used to remove ear wax from hearing aid surfaces (Abstract; Par. 0083 and 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil by having the cleaning liquid be a cleaning liquid comprising isopropyl alcohol and hydrogen peroxide. Gil teaches that the cleaning of the earpiece with the cleaning liquid results in the desired removal of ear wax therefrom, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Siegle, who teaches that a cleaning liquid comprising isopropyl alcohol and hydrogen peroxide can successfully be used to remove ear wax from hearing aid surfaces.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 7,207,342 to Daniels in view of DE20021124U1 by Jump.
With regard to claim 2, Daniels teaches a method of cleaning a device (Abstract; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). Daniels illustrates a pacifier (item 80 in Figure 3) as the to-be-cleaned device, but Daniels teaches that other items (instead of a pacifier) could also be cleaned with the method (Col. 5, 28-34). Daniels’s method comprises placing the to-be-cleaned device into an inner cleaning cavity of a fixture, wherein the inner cleaning cavity is bounded by at least one inner cleaning cavity wall, and wherein the at least one inner cleaning cavity wall comprises inner wall 70 in Figures 2 and 3 (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). Daniels’s method comprises supplying cleaning liquid to the inner cleaning cavity to clean the device (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). Daniels’s fixture comprises at least one fixture body configured to define the inner cleaning cavity, wherein a component of the at least one fixture body is the inner wall 70, wherein the inner cleaning cavity is bounded by the inner wall 70, and wherein the inner wall 70 comprises a plurality of cleaning cavity ports (items 74 in Figure 3; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). The at least one inner cleaning cavity wall also comprises a bottom wall (item 28 in Figures 2 and 3), and this bottom wall define an output opening (item 66 in Figure 5) such that used cleaning liquid can move downward into a waste liquid repository (item 64 in Figures 2 and 3; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 4, line 42). In the method of Daniels, the inner cleaning cavity is configured to receive cleaning liquid via the plurality of cleaning cavity ports 74 and permit the cleaning liquid to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening 66 (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34). The method of Daniels comprises placing the to-be-cleaned device into the inner cleaning cavity, introducing the cleaning liquid into the inner cleaning cavity via the plurality of cleaning cavity ports, and allowing the cleaning liquid to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34).
Daniels does not specifically teach using alcohol as the cleaning liquid.
Jump teaches that, when attempting to clean a pacifier, alcohol can successfully be used to clean a pacifier (page 2 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Daniels by having the cleaning liquid comprise alcohol. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Jump, who teaches that, when attempting to clean a pacifier, alcohol can successfully be used to clean a pacifier.
With regard to claim 3, in the method of Daniels in view of Jump, the at least one fixture body can be considered to comprise a lid (item 46 in Figure 3 of Daniels; reads on first fixture body) and a second fixture body comprising attached upper and lower portions (items 24 and 32 in Figure 3; Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 5, line 34 of Daniels). The lid can be threaded (via threads 40 and 48 in Figure 3 of Daniels) to the second fixture body (Col. 3, line 47 to Col. 4, line 15 of Daniels), and thus the lids and second fixture body can be considered to be configured to engage each other. In the combination of Daniels in view of Jump, the at least one inner cleaning cavity wall comprises an upper wall (reads on first inner cleaning cavity wall) defined by the lid and a bottom wall (reads on second inner cleaning cavity wall) defined by wall 28 (in Figure 3 of Daniels) of the second fixture body. In the combination of Daniels in view of Jump, the inner cleaning cavity can be mentally divided into an upper portion that is at least partially bound by said upper wall and a lower portion that is at least partially bound by said bottom wall.
With regard to claim 4, in the method of Daniels in view of Jump, when the lid 46 is threaded (reads on engaged with) the second fixture body, the output opening (item 66 in Figure 5 of Daniels) is positioned between said lid and a bottommost wall (“bottommost” when looking at Figure 3 of Daniels) of the second fixture body.
With regard to claim 5, in the method of Daniels in view of Jump, the cleaning cavity ports (items 74 in Figure 3 of Daniels) and the output opening (item 66 in Figure 5 of Daniels) are smaller than the pacifier such that the pacifier does not leave the inner cleaning cavity when the lid 46 is threaded with the second fixture body.
With regard to claim 6, the method of Daniels in view of Jump, as developed thus far, does not teach an output opening that is defined circumferentially around the inner cleaning cavity. However, Daniels in view of Jump teaches that a removable lid (item 46 in Figure 3) is threaded to the top of the cleaning tool such that the to-be-cleaned device is contained in the cleaning tool during cleaning (Col. 3, line 48 to Col. 5, line 34 of Daniels). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Daniels such that the lid is removed from the cleaning tool after cleaning of the pacifier is complete such that the cleaned pacifier can be removed from the cleaning tool. Motivation for performing the modification would be to remove the cleaned pacifier after its cleaning is complete such that the pacifier can be used elsewhere.
In this combination of Daniels in view of Jump, when the lid 46 is removed (by unthreading the lid from the rest of the cleaning tool) from the rest of the cleaning tool, a top portion of the space within the inner wall 70 can be considered to read on applicant’s output opening, and this output opening is defined circumferentially around the inner cleaning cavity. In this combination of Daniels in view of Jump, when the lid 46 is removed (by unthreading the lid from the rest of the cleaning tool) from the rest of the cleaning tool, the output opening (that is, said top portion of the space within the inner wall 70 that reads on applicant’s output opening) is considered to permit the alcohol to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening (that is, said top portion of the space within the inner wall 70 that reads on applicant’s output opening) because fumes from the alcohol can flow upwardly out of the opened cleaning tool.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Daniels in view of Jump, a top portion of the space within the inner wall 70 can be considered to read on applicant’s output port, as this port fluidly couples the output opening (item 66 in Figure 5 of Daniels) to an exterior of the fixture when the lid 46 is removed from the cleaning tool.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Daniels in view of Jump does not teach that the first and second inner cleaning cavity walls each define a shape that matches half of the to-be-cleaned device with a clearance between the corresponding wall and the device. However, it is well known that pacifiers can comprise a mouth shield component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Daniels in view of Jump such that the pacifier cleaned in the cleaning tool is a pacifier comprising a mouth shield component, wherein this mouth shield component is what corresponds to applicant’s device. It is well known that pacifiers can comprise a mouth shield component, and motivation for performing the modification would be to successfully clean such a pacifier. Furthermore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Daniels in view of Jump such that the first inner cleaning cavity wall is shaped to have a curvature/flatness matching a first half of said mouth shield component and such that the second inner cleaning cavity wall is shaped to have a curvature/flatness matching a second half of said mouth shield component. Motivation for modifying the cavity wall shapes in that manner is that the walls could successfully perform their functions as walls while having such shapes. In this modified method of Daniels in view of Jump, the modified cavity walls would still have their modified shapes when the pacifier is separated from the walls such that clearances therebetween exist.
With regard to claim 9, in the method of Daniels in view of Jump, the lid 46 comprises threads 48 (in Figure 3 of Daniels) that read on applicant’s one or more first guides. The second fixture body comprises threads 40 (in Figure 3 of Daniels) that read on applicant’s one or more second guides. The threads 48 and threads 40 have complementary shapes such that the threads can be mated to align the lid with the second fixture body.
With regard to claim 10, in the method of Daniels in view of Jump, the lid 46 defines a first external wall, the second fixture body defines a second external wall (pointed to by numeral 24 in Figure 3 of Daniels), and the lid is mated (via threads 48 and 40 in Figure 3 of Daniels) to the second fixture body such that the lid is sealed to the second fixture body. The combination of Daniels in view of Jump does not explicitly teach the threading of the lid to the second fixture body results in an airtight seal. However, since the threading serves to seal the cleaning fluid in the cleaning tool, the tightness of the seal formed by the threading is considered to be a result-effective variable as that tightness affects the potential of fluid to undesirably escape the cleaning tool. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Daniels in view of Jump by optimizing the tightness of the seal formed by the thread connection, as that tightness affects whether fluid can undesirably escape the closed cleaning tool.
With regard to claim 11, in the method of Daniels in view of Jump, the at least one fixture body further defines a waste liquid repository (item 64 in Figure 3 of Daniels; reads on outer cavity) separate from the inner cleaning cavity, wherein the waste liquid repository is fluidically coupled to the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening (item 66 in Figure 5 of Daniels).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 7,207,342 to Daniels.
With regard to claim 13, the teachings of Daniels are discussed in the above anticipation rejection of claim 12.
Daniels does not explicitly teach introducing air into the fixture via the cleaning cavity ports 74. However, Daniels teaches that a removable lid (item 46 in Figure 3) is threaded to the top of the cleaning tool such that the to-be-cleaned device is contained in the cleaning tool during cleaning (Col. 3, line 48 to Col. 5, line 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Daniels such that the lid is removed from the cleaning tool after cleaning of the device is complete such that the cleaned device can be removed from the cleaning tool. Motivation for performing the modification would be to remove the cleaned device (Daniels discusses a pacifier 80 as one example of a possible device cleaned by the cleaning tool) after its cleaning is complete such that the device can be used elsewhere. In this modified method of Daniels, and in the situation where the fixture is considered to comprise inner wall 70, the removal of the lid would result in air being introduced (due to the well-known property of air molecules moving around such that air fills its container) into the fixture via each of the plurality of cleaning cavity ports, and the output opening 66 would allow air to leave the inner cleaning cavity.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0220385 by Gil in view of U.S. 7,207,342 to Daniels.
With regard to claim 16, Gil teaches a method of cleaning an earpiece of a hearing aid, wherein the earpiece is the portion inserted into a person’s ear and thus subject to earwax contamination (Abstract; Par. 0046-0068). Gil’s cleaning method is performed with a fixture comprising a fixture body that defines an inner cleaning cavity (item 12 in Figure 2) bounded by at least one inner cleaning cavity wall (Abstract; Par. 0046-0068). Gil’s method uses at least one liquid supply pipe (one of which is illustrated as item 13 in Figure 6; the at least one liquid supply pips is considered to be part of at least one external input port; Par. 0058-0068). The inner cleaning cavity comprises an output opening (item 15 in Figure 2) through which used cleaning liquid can be exhausted (Par. 0065-0068). The inner cleaning cavity is configured to receive the cleaning liquid via the at least one liquid supply pipe and permit the cleaning liquid to exit the inner cleaning cavity via the output opening (Par. 0058-0068). A liquid supply (tank 17 in Figure 2) is connected to the at least one liquid supply pipe (Par. 0068). In the method of Gil, the earpiece is cleaned by cleaning liquid for a determined period of time by supplying the cleaning liquid to the at least one liquid supply pipe via the fluid supply, which is connected to the fixture (Par. 0068 and 0112). In the method of Gil, after the cleaning of the earpiece with the cleaning liquid, drying air is supplied for a determined time to the earpiece in order to remove the cleaning liquid therefrom (Par. 0114). The drying air is supplied via an external input port (Par. 0109), wherein that external input port can be considered part of at least one external input port.
Gil does not explicitly teach that ports through which the cleaning liquid is injected into the inner cleaning cavity are defined by at least one inner cleaning cavity wall, and Gil does not explicitly teach that the output opening is defined by the at least one inner cleaning cavity wall.
Daniels teaches that when injecting cleaning liquid through a wall into an inner cleaning cavity, ports through which the cleaning liquid is injected into the inner cleaning cavity can be ports (items 74 in Figures 2 and 3) defined by said wall (Col. 3, line 48 to Col. 4, line 67). Daniels teaches that an outlet for removing used cleaning liquid from an inner cleaning cavity can be an outlet (item 66 in Figure 5) defined by a wall of said inner cleaning cavity (Col. 3, line 48 to Col. 4, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil such that a plurality of liquid supply pipes (one of which is illustrated as item 13 in Figure 6 of Gil) terminate in cleaning cavity ports defined by the at least one inner cavity wall and such that the outlet for using cleaning liquid is defined by the at least one inner cavity wall. Motivation for using multiple liquid supply pipes (instead of just one) was provided by Gil was provided by Gil, who teaches having “at least one pipe 13” (Par. 0062 of Gil) supply the cleaning liquid, thus clearly suggesting that more than one cleaning liquid supply pipe could be used. Motivating for having the cleaning liquid supplied via ports defined by the at least one inner cavity wall was provided by Daniels, who teaches that ports defined by a cavity wall can successfully be used to deliver cleaning liquid into a cleaning cavity. Motivation for having the outlet for used cleaning liquid defined by the at least one inner cavity wall was provided by Daniels, who teaches that an outlet defined by a cleaning cavity wall can successfully be used as an outlet for cleaning liquid from a cleaning cavity.
The combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that, after the cleaning of the earpiece with the cleaning liquid, drying air is supplied for a determined time to the earpiece in order to remove the cleaning liquid therefrom (Par. 0114 of Gil). The drying air is supplied via an external input port (Par. 0109 of Gil). The combination of Gil in view of Daniels does not explicitly teach that the air comes from an air supply. However, in the art of supplying air to a cleaning apparatus, it is well known that a gas cylinder containing air can successfully function as a source of air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil in view of Daniels such that the external input port used to provide air receives its air from a gas cylinder containing air. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of supplying air to a cleaning apparatus, it is well known that a gas cylinder containing air can successfully function as a source of air.
With regard to claim 17, in the combination of Gil in view of Daniels, the gas cylinder of air is fluidly connected to the fixture such that drying air can be supplied into the inner cleaning cavity of the fixture, and in the combination of Gil in view of Daniels, the liquid supply (tank 17 in Figure 2) is fluidly connected to the fixture such the cleaning liquid can be supplied into the inner cleaning cavity.
With regard to claim 18, in the combination of Gil in view of Daniels, the fixture comprises an upper portion (item 302 in Figure 9 of Gil) and a lower portion (item 303 in Figure 9 of Gil), wherein the upper and lower portions are engaged with each other by connecting them via clips (Par. 0093 of Gil). The combination of Gil in view of Daniels does not recite that, when the apparatus is being assembled, those upper and lower portions are connected via said clips before the gas cylinder or air and the liquid supply are connected to the fixture. However, as discussed in MPEP 2144.04, “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil in view of Daniels such that, when assembling the apparatus, the upper and lower portions are connected via said clips before the gas cylinder or air and the liquid supply are connected to the fixture. Motivation for performing the assembly in that step order was provided by the MPEP guidance that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0220385 by Gil in view of U.S. 7,207,342 to Daniels as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. 2002/0082794 by Kachler.
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that the cleaned device is a hearing aid (Par. 0045 of Gil). The combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that a hearing aid can undesirably degrade over time (Par. 0008 of Gil).
The combination of Gil in view of Daniels does not teach using a microphone to test the hearing aid.
Kachler teaches that a hearing aid can be successfully tested by using a computer to generate an audio signal to be emitted by the sound transducer (item 5 in Figure 1) of the hearing aid, transmitting (via cable 10 in Figure 10) the audio signal to the sound transducer of the hearing aid such that sound is emitted from the sound transducer, generating by a microphone an electrical signal that is transmitted to the computer by the cable 10, and then evaluating the transmitted electrical signal as a way of evaluating the functioning of the hearing aid (Abstract; Par. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil in view of Daniels such that, after the hearing aid is cleaned, the apparatus also comprises a testing station wherein the hearing aid’s functionality is tested, wherein the testing involves using a computer to generate an audio signal to be emitted by a sound transducer (reads on audio device) of the hearing aid, transmitting (via a cable) the audio signal to the sound transducer of the hearing aid such that sound is emitted from the sound transducer, generating by a microphone an electrical signal that is transmitted to the computer by the cable, and then evaluating the transmitted electrical signal as a way of evaluating the functioning of the hearing aid. The combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that a hearing aid can undesirably degrade over time (Par. 0008 of Gil), and the motivation for having such a testing station as taught by Kachler was provided by Kachler, who teaches that such a testing station allows a hearing aid to be successfully tested.
In this combination of Gil in view of Daniels in view of Kachler, the transmitted electrical signal is evaluated as a way of evaluating the functioning of the hearing aid. The combination of Gil in view of Daniels in view of Kachler does not explicitly teach performing a grading. However, determining if a hearing aid is in good condition or bad condition can be considered to be a grading (such as pass/fail) of the hearing aid, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil in view of Daniels in view of Kachler such that the evaluating of the electrical signal is performed as a way of grading (pass/fail) the functionality of the hearing aid and its components (such as the transducer) – the motivation for performing such a grading being that failing hearing aids can be properly labeled as defective.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0220385 by Gil in view of U.S. 7,207,342 to Daniels as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. 2002/0082794 by Kachler in view of EP 0183324 to Favero.
With regard to claim 20, the combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that the cleaned device is a hearing aid (Par. 0045 of Gil). The combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that a hearing aid can undesirably degrade over time (Par. 0008 of Gil).
Kachler teaches that functionality of a hearing aid can be successfully tested by using testing equipment (Abstract; Par. 0023).
In the art of processing a component at different stations, it is well known that a rotatory table can successfully be used as a means for transporting a component from one station to another. An example of this well-known use for a rotary table was provided by Favero, who teaches that a rotary table can successfully be used to transport a component from one station to another (Col. 2, line 65 to Col. 3, line 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil in view of Daniels such that a station for testing a hearing aid in the manner taught by Kachler is present and such that a rotary table is used to move the hearing aid from a cleaning station wherein the cleaning method of Gil in view of Daniels is performed to the testing station. The combination of Gil in view of Daniels teaches that a hearing aid can undesirably degrade over time (Par. 0008 of Gil), and motivation for adding a testing station was provided by Kachler, who teaches that functionality of a hearing aid can be successfully tested by using testing equipment. Motivation for using a rotary table to move the hearing aid from the cleaning station to the testing station was provided by the fact that, in the art of processing a component at different stations, it is well known that a rotatory table can successfully be used as a means for transporting a component from one station to another – Favero providing an example of this well-known concept.
The combination of Gil in view of Daniels in view of Kachler in view of Favero does not teach that the rotary table is a rotary index table. However, in the art of rotary tables, it is well known that a rotary index table can successfully move something from one location to another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gil in view of Daniels in view of Kachler in view of Favero such that the rotary table is a rotary index table, as it is well known in the art of rotary tables that a rotary index table can successfully move something from one location to another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714