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 . Claims 1-6, 8-19 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show specific antenna (claims 1, 18, 19) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), or 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.
Claim(s) 1, 18-19 is/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.
With respect to claims 1, 18, 19, it is not understood based on the claims supported by specification and drawings what the configuration of a patch-type (claim 1), dipole (claim 1), monopole (claim 18), or loop antenna (claim 19) is such that specific antenna protrudes from a faceplate of a hearing aid and is mounted with a fin-like structure.
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) 1-6, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elghannai et al (US Publication No. 20230387575).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 18, 19, Elghannai teaches a hearing device comprising: a housing (300) comprising a shell configured to fit at least partially inside the ear canal and a faceplate (302); an antenna (internal, 238; external, 240, 242) mount protruding from the faceplate (302); and an antenna (238; 240, 242, which related to the structure, fig. 3 for the antenna, 312, 314, 316, para. 0042) protruding from the faceplate and mounted at the antenna mount, wherein the antenna mount (240; 314, 316) is a fin-like structure having a face and a perimeter, the face (fig. 2, triangular shape; fig. 3, round shape) having a surface area greater than a surface area of the perimeter.
Elghannai fails to teaches the specific configuration of the antenna as a patch-type, dipole, monopole (claim 18), or loop antenna (claim 19).
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to use different antenna configurations to enable the desired transmission or reception of radio frequency signals in a given apparatus to meet specific communication range requirements.
It would have been obvious matter of design choice to allow any well know antenna configuration in the invention since Applicant's has not disclosed that having the particular configuration solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any antenna arrangement in the invention Elghannai[In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)].
Regarding claim 2, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the antenna mount is made of a transparent or translucent plastic material, or a material having a substantially same color as a color of the faceplate (para. 0046; wherein the mount, 316, may have a light sensor as such the surface anticipates a material capable of receiving light energy).
Regarding claim 3, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the faceplate (302) has a curved surface and the antenna mount extends seamlessly from the curved surface.
Regarding claim 4, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the antenna mount (240) is substantially triangular or substantially rectangular.
Regarding claim 5, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 4, wherein the antenna mount comprises a rounded edge (fig. 3A, 3B; 316).
Regarding claim 6, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the antenna mount comprises a soft material (para 0045; 314, cable).
Regarding claim 8-9, Elghannai fails to teach the hearing device or method of claim 1, wherein the faceplate and the antenna mount are a single 3D- printed piece.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to use 3D printing to make electronic devices and their parts to expedite manufacture.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have applied 3D printing to the invention of Elghannai to make the device and/or its parts and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein a surface area of the antenna mount (238) inside the antenna is greater than a surface area of the antenna mount (240) outside the antenna.
Regarding claim 11, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the antenna (238) is longer than the perimeter of the mount (240).
Regarding claim 12, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the antenna mount (240; based on fig. 3A, 316) is a solid shape.
Regarding claims 13, 16-17, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, further comprising a power circuit (214) in the housing
Elghannai fails to teach the power circuit having charging contact pins or a charging coil mounted on the hearing device.
However, the Examiner takes Office notice that it is well known in the art to use contacts or coil to recharge a power source.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have applied contact or coil to the invention of Elghannai for charging and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, further comprising a wireless transceiver (206) connected to the antenna.
Regarding claim 15, Elghannai teaches the hearing device of claim 1, wherein the faceplate (302) further comprises an internal slot configured to receive a portion of the antenna protruding from the shell (fig. 3A, 3B; electronic circuit fits in faceplate as shown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection with a teaching or matter specifically challenging the amendment to claim 1.
Examiner’s Note
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner’s rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLESHA DABNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday and Friday 10:30-4:30PM.
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 5712727547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
For general questions such as application status, Monday–Friday, 8:30AM -5:00PM, inquiry to:
Local: 571-272-1000
Toll-Free: 800-786-9199
TTY: 800-877-8339
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:
(703) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for informal or draft communications, please label "Proposed" or "Draft" when submitting an informal amendment.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
May 7, 2026
/PHYLESHA DABNEY/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights