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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With regards to applicant’s argument that the Vestergaard et al reference cannot be modified with Reilly et al and Zong because of hindsight, the examiner maintains. Vestergaard et al discloses a hearing instrument with alternate multiple coating layers, where one coating layer is formed of a dielectric material and the other is formed of hydrophobic material (Vestergaard, para 0100: coating of the hearing device includes multiple alternate layers of material coatings where the first layer is aluminum oxide material (dielectric material) and the second layer being a FDTS hydrophobic layer; wherein the layering could be repeated in a multilayering process with the first material and second materials added to the second material (paras 0028-0029)). Since Vestergaard already teaches that there is a hearing instrument with alternate coating materials that include a dielectric material and hydrophobic material, it would have been obvious to modify Vestergaard dielectric material to be polyethylene and its hydrophobic material to be perfluorodecyl acrylate (Reilly et al, para 0063: polyethylene; para 0064: Table 6 includes perfluorodecyl acrylate) as taught in Reilly et al along with a second hydrophobic material being 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluocootyle acrylate (Zong, para 0047) as taught in Zong. Reilly et al and Zong are merely relied upon to teach the specific types of dielectric and hydrophobic materials that can be used. Vestergaard already teaches alternate coating layers where one layer is dielectric and the other layer is hydrophobic. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Vestergaard such that it utilizes the dielectric materials and hydrophobic materials disclosed in Reilly et al and Zong.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestergaard et al, US Patent Pub. 20110110544 A1, in view of Reilly et al, US Patent Pub. 20150057590 A1, and further in view of Zong, US Patent Pub. 20230242788 A1.
Re Claim 1, Vestergaard et al discloses a hearing instrument having improved corrosion protection (abstract: corrosion prevention), the hearing instrument comprising: a substrate (para 0067: coating is placed on a substrate of the hearing device); and a coating at least partially covering the substrate, the coating comprising at least two sets of alternating layers (para 0027: alternating layers of coating), a first layer of the alternating layers comprising a first material and a second layer of the alternating layers comprising a second material (para 0100: coating of the hearing device includes multiple alternate layers of material coatings where the first layer is aluminum oxide material (dielectric material) and the second layer being a FDTS hydrophobic layer; wherein the layering could be repeated in a multilayering process with the first material and second materials added to the second material (paras 0028-0029)); wherein the first material comprises a dielectric material comprising polyethylene (para 0100: coating of the hearing device includes multiple alternate layers of material coatings where the first layer is aluminum oxide material (dielectric material) and the second layer being a FDTS hydrophobic layer; wherein the layering could be repeated in a multilayering process with the first material and second materials added to the second material (paras 0028-0029)); and wherein the second material comprises a hydrophobic material, wherein hydrophobic material comprises 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyl acrylate (para 0100: coating of the hearing device includes multiple alternate layers of material coatings where the first layer is aluminum oxide material (dielectric material) and the second layer being a FDTS hydrophobic layer; wherein the layering could be repeated in a multilayering process with the first material and second materials added to the second material (paras 0028-0029)); but fails to explicitly disclose the dielectric material comprising polyethylene and a second material comprising a perfluorodecyl acrylate. However, Reilly et al teaches the concept of coating a hearing device with different coating materials that include dielectric materials such as polyethylene (Reilly et al, para 0063: polyethylene) and hydrophobic materials such as perfluorodecyl acrylate (Reilly et al, para 0064: Table 6 includes perfluorodecyl acrylate). It would have been obvious to modify the Vestergaard et al device such that it can utilize a polyethylene material as its first dielectric coating layer and a perfluorodecly acrylate as the second hydrophobic coating layer as taught in Reilly et al for the purpose of utilizing coating materials that have very low surface tension that also provides excellent chemical and thermal stability. The combined teachings of Vestergaard et al and Reilly et al fail to disclose where the second hydrophobic material comprises 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl acrylate. However, Zong teaches the concept of multiple layers of protective coating where the second layer coating comprises perfluorooctyl acrylate for hydrophobic protection (Zong, para 0047). It would have been obvious to modify Reilly et al as used to modify Vestergaard et al such that its second material comprises perfluorooctyl acrylate as taught in Zong instead of perfluorodecly acrylate for the purpose of utilizing a hydrophobic protective coating with low surface tension, high hydrophobicity, and oil repellency for coatings, textiles, and surface treatments.
Re Claim 2, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the hearing instrument comprises three sets of the alternating layers (Vestergaard et al, para 0107: three layers of coating includes aluminum oxide layer, silicon oxide layer and FDTS hydrophobic layer).
Re Claim 5, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first layer is double the thickness of the second layer. However, Vestergaard et al teches the concept where its alternating layers have different thicknesses (Vestergaard et al, paras 0027, 0105). Since Vestergaard et al teaches the alternating layers having different thicknesses, it would have been obvious to differentiate the thickness between the layers such that the first layer thickness is double or more the second layer or vice versa for the purpose of optimizing insulation and waterproof capabilities of the coating layers.
Re Claim 6, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises electrical components and/or solder points (Vestergaard et al, para 0052: electrical connection on the substrate housing of the hearing device).
Re Claim 7, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein at least one of the alternating layers including the dielectric material is in contact with the substrate (Vestergaard et al, para 0100: coating of the hearing device includes multiple alternate layers of material coatings where the first layer on the substrate is aluminum oxide material (dielectric material) and the second layer being a FDTS hydrophobic layer).
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Re Claim 9, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the method of claim 8, wherein applying one or more of the primary first layer, the primary second layer, the secondary first layer, and the secondary second layer comprises applying via a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) (Vestergaard et al, para 0028: vapour phase deposition).
Re Claim 10, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the method of claim 8, but fail to disclose further comprising: applying a tertiary first layer onto the secondary second layer, wherein the tertiary first layer comprises the first material; and applying a tertiary second layer onto the tertiary first layer, wherein the tertiary second layer comprises the second material. Since Vestergaard et al discloses multilayer coating where the layer applications are repeated in the same order (Vestergaard et al, paras 0028-0029), it would have been obvious to add more than 2 layers of the dielectric and hydrophobic materials of Vestergaard et al where the 3rd and subsequent thereafter layers are interpreted as the tertiary layers for the purpose of insuring sufficient amounts of coating.
Claims 3-4 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vestergaard et al, US Patent Pub. 20110110544 A1, Reilly et al, US Patent Pub. 20150057590 A1 and Zong, US Patent Pub. 20230242788 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Vestergaard et al’s admitted prior art Para 0012, US Patent Pub. 20110110544 A1 (hereinafter referred to as VAPA).
Re Claim 3, the combined teachings of Vestergaard et al, Reilly et al and Zong disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the coating has thickness of 400-1200 nm. However, VAPA teaches the concept of coating material with thickness in range of 50-300 nm (VAPA, para 0012). Since the coating material thickness of VAPA is almost 300 nm, it would have been obvious to modify VAPA as used to modify Vestergaard et al such that the coating material thickness range is extended to between 400 – 1200nm for the purpose of providing more thicker layers to insure better protection.
Claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 3.
Claims 11-12 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 3.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights