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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant's amendment which was filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 13-14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-21 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 13 being independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houcek (US 2020/0213787) in view of Kim (KR 100945849).
Regarding claim 1, Houcek teaches An ear-worn hearing device comprising: a housing (Houcek figure 2, case of receiver 102 and sleeve 202) comprising an end portion configured for at least partial insertion into a user's ear (Houcek figure 2, nozzle 120 and ¶0015, “when the sleeve member is at least partially inserted into the user's ear canal”), the housing comprising an opening at the end portion (Houcek figures 2-3, and ¶0018, “a nozzle 120 having a sound port 110 acoustically coupled to an acoustic output of the receiver”); an electrical circuit disposed in the housing (Houcek figures 4-5, and ¶0033, “FIG. 3 shows the receiver having an electrical interface 306 with multiple contacts 304, 308 and 310. FIG. 5 shows an electrical interface 512 with contacts embodied as a single terminal board fixed to an end of the receiver housing and electrically coupled to coil leads 508, 510. Conductors of the electrical cable can likewise be electrically connected to corresponding contacts of the sleeve member when the cable is inserted into the cable interface from outside the sleeve member”); and a transducer assembly disposed in the housing (Houcek figures 4-5, and ¶0032, “the sound-producing electroacoustic transducer is a dynamic speaker having a conventional motor and diaphragm as is known generally. In other embodiments, other known or future sound-producing electroacoustic device may be used alternatively”), the transducer assembly comprising: an acoustic transducer comprising a motor-actuated diaphragm (Houcek figures 4-5, and ¶0032, “the sound-producing electroacoustic transducer is a dynamic speaker having a conventional motor and diaphragm as is known generally. In other embodiments, other known or future sound-producing electroacoustic device may be used alternatively,” dynamic speakers are motor-actuated because they use an electromagnetic motor to vibrate a cone and produce sound) and an open portion from which sound is emitted (Houcek figures 2-3, and ¶0018, “a nozzle 120 having a sound port 110 acoustically coupled to an acoustic output of the receiver”); electrical contacts removably coupled electrically to corresponding contacts of the electrical circuit (Houcek ¶0033); and a retention structure removably coupled mechanically to the housing (Houcek figure 3, apertures 208, 302), however does not explicitly teach a vibration isolator coupled to the transducer assembly and comprising an acoustic passage coupled to the open portion of the acoustic transducer.
Kim teaches a vibration isolator coupled to the transducer assembly (Kim figure 5, vibration dampeners 37)and comprising an acoustic passage coupled to the open portion of the acoustic transducer (Kim figure 5, the speaker unit 30 output is directed towards the opening by grill net 29 which would go through the acoustic hole of vibration isolation hole 37 and Page 7 “the above vibration damping member (37) has an opening (37a) that allows the diaphragm portion of the speaker unit (30) to be connected”).
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 Kim to improve the known hearing device of Houcek to achieve the predictable result of reducing unwanted vibrations on the device.
Regarding claim 2, Houcek in view of Kim teaches a support structure mechanically coupled to the acoustic transducer, wherein the open portion of the acoustic transducer is acoustically coupled with an opening of the support structure (Houcek figures 2-3, and ¶0018, “a nozzle 120 having a sound port 110 acoustically coupled to an acoustic output of the receiver”).
Regarding claim 3, Houcek in view of Kim teaches a vibration isolator (Kim figure 5, vibration dampener 37) coupling the acoustic transducer to the support structure (Kim figure 5, reflective surface 16).
Regarding claim 13, Houcek teaches A transducer assembly configured for removable assembly with an ear-worn hearing device housing that extends at least partially into a user's ear (Houcek figure 2, nozzle 120 and ¶0015, “when the sleeve member is at least partially inserted into the user's ear canal”), the transducer assembly comprising: an acoustic transducer comprising a motor-actuated diaphragm (Houcek figures 4-5, and ¶0032, “the sound-producing electroacoustic transducer is a dynamic speaker having a conventional motor and diaphragm as is known generally. In other embodiments, other known or future sound-producing electroacoustic device may be used alternatively”) and an open portion from which sound is emitted (Houcek figures 2-3, and ¶0018, “a nozzle 120 having a sound port 110 acoustically coupled to an acoustic output of the receiver”); and a retention structure configured to retain the transducer assembly in a cavity of an ear-worn hearing device housing when the transducer assembly is assembled with the ear-worn hearing device housing (Houcek figure 3, apertures 208, 302 and cavity 312), however does not explicitly teach a vibration isolator coupled to the transducer assembly and comprising an acoustic passage coupled to the open portion of the acoustic transducer.
Kim teaches a vibration isolator coupled to the transducer assembly (Kim figure 5, vibration dampeners 37)and comprising an acoustic passage coupled to the open portion of the acoustic transducer (Kim figure 5, the speaker unit 30 output is directed towards the opening by grill net 29 which would go through the acoustic hole of vibration isolation hole 37 and Page 7 “the above vibration damping member (37) has an opening (37a) that allows the diaphragm portion of the speaker unit (30) to be connected”).
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 Kim to improve the known hearing device of Houcek to achieve the predictable result of reducing unwanted vibrations on the device.
Regarding claim 14, Houcek in view of Kim teaches a support structure mechanically coupled to the acoustic transducer, the open portion of the acoustic transducer acoustically coupled with an opening of the support structure (Houcek figures 2-3, and ¶0018, “a nozzle 120 having a sound port 110 acoustically coupled to an acoustic output of the receiver”), the vibration isolator (Kim figure 5, vibration dampener 37) coupling the acoustic transducer to the support structure (Kim figure 5, reflective surface 16), and an extraction feature on the support structure, wherein the transducer assembly can be removed from the ear-worn hearing device housing via the extraction feature (Houcek figure 3, apertures 208, 302).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houcek (US 2020/0213787) in view of Kim (KR 100945849) in further view Bolsman (US 2018/0176678).
Regarding claim 4, Houcek in view of Kim does not explicitly teach the vibration isolator comprising a compliant electrical connection.
Bolsman teaches the vibration isolator comprising a compliant electrical connection (Bolsman ¶0076).
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 Bolsman to improve the known ear-worn assembly of Houcek in view of Kim to achieve the predictable result of improving the vibration dampening effect (Bolsman ¶0076).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houcek (US 2020/0213787) in view of Kim (KR 100945849) in further view Mehr (US 2006/0153411).
Regarding claim 5, Houcek in view of Kim teaches the support structure comprising a plate defining the opening (Houcek figure 2, nozzle 120), however does not explicitly teach the vibration isolator comprising a first elastic boot comprising a passage coupling the open portion of the acoustic transducer to opening of the plate.
Mehr teaches the vibration isolator comprising a first elastic boot (Mehr ¶0002 “flexible suspension means”) comprising a passage coupling the open portion of the acoustic transducer to opening of the plate (Mehr ¶0003, “the suspension means also functions as a sound-guide for directing sound between the transducer and the external cabinet of an audio processing device, where the suspension is shaped as a tube which has means for forming a connection with the inlet/outlet of the transducer at a first end and means for forming a connection with the cabinet wall of the audio processing device at a second end in order to guide sound through the tube”).
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 Mehr to improve the known ear-worn assembly of Hoecek in view of Kim to achieve the predictable result of reducing distortion from vibration of the housing (Mehr ¶0002).
Regarding claim 7, Hoecek in view of Kim in further view of Mehr teaches an elastic boot (Mehr ¶0002 “flexible suspension means”) coupled to a second end, opposite the first end, of the housing (Mehr ¶0003, “the suspension means also functions as a sound-guide for directing sound between the transducer and the external cabinet of an audio processing device, where the suspension is shaped as a tube which has means for forming a connection with the inlet/outlet of the transducer at a first end and means for forming a connection with the cabinet wall of the audio processing device at a second end in order to guide sound through the tube”).
Regarding claim 16, Hoecek in view of Kim in further view of Mehr teaches the acoustic transducer comprising a housing defining the open portion on a first end, the support structure comprising a plate defining the opening (Houcek figure 2, nozzle 120), and the vibration isolator comprising a first elastic boot (Mehr ¶0002 “flexible suspension means”) comprising a passage coupling the open portion of the acoustic transducer to the opening of the plate (Mehr ¶0003, “the suspension means also functions as a sound-guide for directing sound between the transducer and the external cabinet of an audio processing device, where the suspension is shaped as a tube which has means for forming a connection with the inlet/outlet of the transducer at a first end and means for forming a connection with the cabinet wall of the audio processing device at a second end in order to guide sound through the tube”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houcek (US 2020/0213787) in view of Kim (KR 100945849) in further view Bolsman (US 2018/0176678) in further view of Morris (US 2016/0366502).
Regarding claim 8, Houcek in view of Kim in further view of Bolsman teaches the vibration isolator further comprising compliant electrical wires that electrically couple the acoustic transducer to the housing, the electrical wires coupled to a first side of an electrical connector assembly and the acoustic transducer coupled a second side of the electrical connector assembly (Bolsman ¶0178 and figure 9B), wherein the electrical connector assembly is removably connectable from the acoustic transducer (Houcek ¶0033), however does not explicitly teach the electrical connector assembly is removably connectable from the acoustic transducer.
Morris teaches the electrical connector assembly is removably connectable from the acoustic transducer (Morris Claim 7).
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 Morris to improve the known ear-worn assembly of Houcek in view of Kim in further view of Bolsman to achieve the predictable result of an easier removably attached electrical connection.
Regarding claim 9, Houcek in view of Kim in further view of Bolsman in further view of Morris teaches the electrical wires comprising spring fingers releasably coupled to the acoustic transducer (Morris Claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, Houcek in view of Kim in further view of Bolsman in further view of Morris teaches he vibration isolator comprising a compliant electrical connection (Bolsman ¶0076) comprising spring fingers that are releasably coupled to the acoustic transducer (Morris Claim 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17-18 are 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 because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “an elastic barb on the vibration isolator, wherein the elastic barb is engageable with a portion of the housing when the transducer assembly is assembled with the housing” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Claims 10-12 and 19-21 are 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 because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “a secondary housing portion containing the acoustic transducer and the vibration isolator, the support structure comprising an end of the secondary housing defining the opening, and the vibration isolator comprising an elastic boot comprising a passage coupling the open portion of the acoustic transducer to the opening of the secondary housing” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection in view of newly found reference Kim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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