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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the Higgins reference fails to disclose an electronic unit is constructed as a mechanically rigidly connected structure because components of Higgins device are coupled to a flexible circuit board, the examiner maintains. Though the electronic components of Higgins are connected to a flexible circuit board (para 0101), they are all mounted within the concha portion housing of an ear insert device where the concha portion housing forms the outer casing made of rigid material to properly support the internal components.
With regards to applicant’s argument that the Shennib reference does not disclose there being discrete elastic cushioning elements mechanically coupled to the housing because the elastic damper of Shennib does not couple the speaker or the microphone to the housing and instead couples the speaker to the microphone, the examiner disagrees. The viscoelastic damper of Shennib is used mainly to teach the concept of using elastic to isolate electronic components to minimize vibrational effects. Furthermore, para 0012 of Shennib teaches that the viscoelastic material encapsulates vibration sensitive components of filling the space within hearing device, whereby encapsulation or filling empty space with viscoelastic material will naturally form a cushion between the electronic components within the hearing device and also cushion between the electronic components and the inner wall of the hearing device housing.
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 9-10 & 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al, US Patent Pub. 20230095933 A1, in view of Shennib, US Patent Pub. 20090074220 A1. (The Higgins et al and Shennib references are listed in IDS filed 8/14/2024)
Re Claim 9, Higgins et al discloses a hearing instrument (abstract), comprising: a housing being worn in an ear of a user and having a concha portion and a canal portion protruding from said concha portion (paras 0013, 0018, 0046, 0053: hearing device includes a canal portion that is input into wearer’s ear canal and a concha portion that will protrude outside the ear); a mechanically rigidly connected electronics unit having a battery, a signal processor and at least one microphone, said electronics unit being accommodated in said concha portion (fig. 6: rechargeable battery 202 with inherent electrical charge connector (para 0131), microphones 206, electronic circuitry 200 is also read as signal processor are all illustratively located within the concha portion of the ear device; para 0101); a receiver accommodated, at least in part, in said canal portion, separately from said electronics unit (fig. 6: receiver/speaker 210 is illustratively located within the canal portion of the ear device; para 0101); but fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of discrete elastic cushioning elements, said electronics unit being mechanically coupled to said housing only by way of said plurality of discrete elastic cushioning elements. However, Shennib teaches the concept of utilizing a discrete elastic cushion such as a viscoelastic damper disposed between the microphone and speaker electronic components (Shennib, paras 00012, 0029, 0043, claim 13). It would have been obvious to incorporate viscoelastic material around each one of the electronic components of the hearing device including speakers, microphones, rechargeable batteries, electronic circuitry etc. of Higgins et al, as taught in Shennib whereby one of ordinary skill can incorporate a plurality of viscoelastic material (three or more since there are three or more components listed above) since the ear device of Higgins et al includes a plurality of electronic components as listed above for the purpose of reducing vibration coupling between the aforementioned ear device components.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Re Claim 14, the combined teachings of Higgins et al and Shennib disclose the hearing instrument according to claim 9, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein said discrete elastic cushioning elements are formed from a fluoroelastomer or a silicone. Since Shennib discloses a viscoelastic material (Shennib, paras 00012, 0029, 0043, claim 13) and since silicone is a type of viscoelastic material with a hardness range of between 20 and 70; it would have been obvious to utilize silicone as a viscoelastic material of Shennib, as used to modify Higgins et al, for the purpose of using a vibration damping material that does not release harmful chemicals.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 14.
Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9; comprising: a first hearing instrument according to claim 9 for a left ear of a user (Higgins et al, para 0010: combination left ear device and right ear device); and a second hearing instrument according to claim 9 for a right ear of the user (Higgins et al, para 0010: combination left ear device and right ear device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 11: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein: said housing has a housing opening formed therein; and at least one of said discrete elastic cushioning elements is embodied as a ring-shaped structure surrounding a perforation, and wherein said perforation is disposed flush with said housing opening such that said at least one discrete elastic cushioning element seals a space formed between said housing opening and said electronics unit vis-à-vis a residual interior of said housing.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 07/17/2026
Prosecution Insights