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 .
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin, EP 1705954 A2.
Re Claim 1, Martin discloses an ear interface comprising a proximal portion and a distal portion (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)), a first opening at the proximal portion (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)), a first cavity and a second cavity extending away from the first opening (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)), the first cavity having a first partial generally capsule shape (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)), the second cavity having a second partial generally capsule shape (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)), a second opening at the distal portion (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)), and a passage extending from the first cavity to the second opening (fig. 2: sound channel 33 goes from one end of the ear device(distal portion) to the opposite end (proximal portion); fig. 5: 63; para 0013: sound channel 33; para 0016: sound channel 63; wherein the sound channels 33 & 63 will inherently have openings on the proximal end and opening on the distal end to facilitate sound passage through the sound channel into listener’s ear canal with the sound channels being navigated through a cavity and the hearing devices of figs. 2 & 5 illustratively looking like capsules; wherein the earmold is formed from data from computer aided design (CAD) of three dimensional form (abstract: 3D CAD scan is a digital representation)).
Re Claim 2, Martin discloses the ear interface of claim 1 wherein a portion of the passage has a generally cylindrical shape (fig. 5; para 0016: sound channel 63 is connected to a sound tube 65; where since sound tubes are generally cylindrical, the sound channel 63 it is connected to is inherently cylindrical).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, EP 1705954 A2, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Aubert, US Patent Pub. 20120140967 A1.
Re Claim 3, Martin discloses the ear interface of claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a pressure-equalization vent having a third opening at one of the first cavity, the second cavity, and the passage, a fourth opening at an exterior of the ear interface, and a vent passage between the third opening and the fourth opening. However, Aubert teaches the concept of an ear device that includes a vent passage, where the vent passage serves for pressure equalization, where the vent passage includes inner and outer openings with the outer openings open towards the outside environment (Aubert, abstract; para 0026; paras 0051, 0060). It would have been obvious to modify the Martin reference such that it includes a vent passage that serves for pressure equalization with multiple openings as taught in Aubert so that so-called occlusion effect which is perceived by individuals when their ear canal is not sufficiently open to atmosphere.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, EP 1705954 A2 and Aubert, US Patent Pub. 20120140967 A1, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Yu, CN 114615584 A.
Re Claim 4, the combined teachings of Marin and Aubert disclose the ear interface of claim 3, but fail to disclose further comprising a hollow plug positioned within a portion of the vent passage. However, Yu teaches the concept of an in-ear device (Yu, abstract), that includes a fluid passage for communication with a vent hole with a plug seat and a plug piece where the plug piece can be moved relative to the plug seat to close or open the fluid passage (Yu, 3rd paragraph of Plug Structure section: paragraph begins with “According to some embodiments of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 11C to FIG. 11H, ventilation….”). It would have been obvious to modify the Aubert device, as used to modify Martin such that it includes a plug within its passageway as taught in Yu for the purpose of closing or opening the passageway.
Claims 5-6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, EP 1705954 A2, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Suyama, EP 1853088 B1.
Re Claim 5, Martin discloses the ear interface of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion include silicone. However, Suyama discloses a hearing device where the hearing device is made up of silicone (Suyama, paras 0050-0051: silicone material, where silicone is a high biocompatible material; where components of the ear device interface such as the tube are separated from the earmold). It would have been obvious to modify the Martin device to be made of silicone material to form and finish the hearing device as taught in Suyama for the purpose of using a material that does not easily release harmful chemicals.
Claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1 & 5.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1 & 5.
Claims 7 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, EP 1705954 A2 and Suyama, EP 1853088 B1, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Aubert, US Patent Pub. 20120140967 A1, and further in view of Yu, CN 114615584 A.
Claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 3-5.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 3-5.
Claims 8-11, 13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, EP 1705954 A2 and Suyama, EP 1853088 B1, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Slabaugh et al, US Patent Pub. 20070127756 A1.
Re Claim 8, the combined teachings of Martin and Suyama disclose the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose further comprising: receiving one or more images or videos of the ear impression; and determining, based on the one or more images or videos, that the ear impression meets a quality threshold. However, Slabaugh et al teaches the concept of making an ear mold base on captured ear images/impressions (Slabaugh et al, abstract; paras 0008, 0020: scanning of user’s ear, 0022-0023: image of entire diameter of the ear which naturally includes the depth to create ear mold and light reflections; wherein a user is able to edit the information pertaining to the captured image (para 0032) where the ability to edit implies there being a user interface). It would have been obvious to modify Martin and Suyama to generate an ear mold based on captured images as taught in Slabaugh et al for the purpose of optimizing the generated earmold to be very similar with a real ear.
Claims 9-11 have been analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
Claims 16-19 have been analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
Claims 12 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, EP 1705954 A2 and Suyama, EP 1853088 B1, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Heide et al, US Patent 5781637.
Re Claim 12, the combined teachings of Martin and Suyama disclose the method of claim 6, but fail to disclose further comprising providing instructions for positioning a fit disc assembly in a material placed into an ear to form the ear impression. However, Heide et al teaches the concept of a disc being used within an ear mold (Heide et al, col. 5, lines 28-44: disc 20). It would have been obvious Martin and Suyama such that a disc is utilized in the ear mold as taught in Heide et al for the purpose of stabilizing the ear mold structure.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 12.
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 2/6/2026