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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/19/24 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/19/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 4, 5 and 21 set forth the term “at least one of” along with the conjunctive term “and” to provide alternative possibilities of elements to be used. However, when using the conjunctive term “and” then the claim would actually mean the use of one of each of the claimed elements which is not what is intended as seen from the discussions in corresponding portions discussing these features in the written disclosure. Examiner believes applicant should change the conjunctive wording in these claims to a disjunctive wording by changing “at least one of” … “and” to - - at least one of - - … - - or - -. Examiner will interpret, for art purposes, the limitations of claims 4, 5 and 21 as the intended meaning as disjunctive. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 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.
Claim 19, line 1 and claim 20, line 1 recite the limitation "the ear hook structure" that was not previously defined. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). Similarly claim 25 sets forth “the magnetic stimulator” and “the controller” lacking positive antecedent basis. It appears these features should be dependent upon those features of claim 24. Also claims 27 and 28 contain phrases such as “the head band” lacking positive antecedent basis. For art purposes the examiner will consider that the features of claims 25, 26, 27 and 28 depend upon those features of claim 24, 25, 26 and 27 respectively, to provide proper antecedent basis for these terms.
Claim 30 sets forth “the microphone” and claim 31 sets forth “the audio processor” and “the wireless transceiver” lacking positive antecedent basis. For art purposes the examiner will consider that the features of claims 30 and 31 to depend upon those features of claim 24 to provide proper antecedent basis for these terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westerkull (US 2016/0234613 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claim 1: Westerkull teaches a non-surgical hearing system (figure 1) configured as a hearing aid, comprising: a hearing device (101/104) for converting and transmitting audio signals to a user through bone conduction, wherein the hearing device (101/104) comprises a female mating member (103); and an adhesive member (109 part of 104) to be attached to the user, wherein the adhesive member (109/104) comprises a male mating member (105) configured to be attached to the female mating member (103) of the hearing device (101/104).
Re claim 5: See paragraph [0045-0046] in which mating members used can be flexible and elastic and include magnetic materials.
Re claim 6: see figures 1, 2, 3D, 5A, 5B for use of the adhesive to attach the male mating member to a user
Re claim 7: as seen from figure 1 and paragraph [0048] the adhesive sheet includes holes (116)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerkull in view of MacDonald et al. (US 6,914,887 B2)
Re claim 2: The teaching of Westerkull is discussed above and incorporated herein. Westerkull does not teach an ear hook for enclosing the hearing device and which is comprised of an out component and an inner wire. MacDonald et al. teaches in a similar environment to use ear hooks that have an inner wire covered by outer component (See figure 7 along with column 1, lines 62-67 allowing the hook to be shaped and thereafter maintain its shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such ear hook arrangements (MacDonald et al.) into the hearing aid arrangement of Westerkull to predictably allow the ear hook to be shaped and thereafter maintain its shape. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 4: note the hearing device used in Westerkull is a hearing aid satisfying the alternative claimed features
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerkull in view of MacDonald et al. (US 6,914,887 B2) as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Good et al. (US 2018/0084349 A1), cited by applicant
Re claim 3: The teaching of Westerkull in view of MacDonald et al. (US 6,914,887 B2) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach to use a dual hook arrangement as set forth. Good et al. teaches in a similar environment to use an ear hook with dual hook portions (See figures 2B and 2D) providing added stability when attaching a device around a user’s ear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Westerkull in view of MacDonald et al. (US 6,914,887 B2) as applied to predictably provide added stability when attaching a device around a user’s ear. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 13-17, 21-23, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerkull in view of Cohen et al. (WO 2006/105105 A2).
Re claim 13: The teaching of Westerkull is discussed above and incorporated herein. Westerkull does not teach the use of a button/switch allow two modes of operation, one including a hear aid mode. Cohen et al. teaches in a similar environment to include a button(s), paragraph [0109] allowing two modes of operation (hearing aid mode and phone mode) providing dual capabilities of an ear module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Westerkull to predictably provide a device with dual capabilities. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 14: note paragraph [0055] of Cohen et al. teaching the use of microphone (34) in hearing aid mode along with paragraph [0068] where microphone(s) are used to detect ambient sounds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Westerkull to predictably provide a device with dual capabilities. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 15: note in Cohen et al., Bluetooth communications that comprises transceivers (inherent) and processors are used to allow for communications to other devices (see figure 1 along with discussion in paragraph [0052]) allowing for a phone mode of operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe filing of the invention to incorporate such features into the arrangement of Westerkull to predictably allow for a phone mode of operation. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 16: Westerkull teaches a hearing system which is used by attaching an adhesive member (109) behind the ear of a user (see figure 2), connecting a hearing device (101) to the adhesive, converting audio signals into vibrations (circuitry within (101) including a vibrator (102) and transmitting these vibrations to a hearing organ (137). Westerkull however does not teach to select a hearing mode or a phone mode. Cohen et al. teaches in a similar environment to select between a hearing aid mode and a phone mode by the use of buttons (paragraph [0109] allowing two modes of operation (hearing aid mode and phone mode) providing dual capabilities of an ear module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Westerkull to predictably provide a device with dual capabilities. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 17: Additionally note in Westerkull, magnetic connections can be made (paragraph [0046]) when attaching the hearing device to the adhesive.
Re claim 21: note Westerkull teaches that the mating members cand be flexible, elastic and magnetic (paragraphs [0045-0046])
Re claim 22: see figures 1, 2, 3D, 5A, 5B of Westerkull for use of the adhesive to attach the male mating member to a user
Re claim 23: as seen from Westerkull; figure 1 and paragraph [0048] the adhesive sheet includes holes (116)
Re claim 29: additionally note Cohen et al. teaches in a similar environment to select between a hearing aid mode and a regular mode (phone mode) by the use of buttons (paragraph [0109] allowing two modes of operation (hearing aid mode and phone mode) providing dual capabilities of an ear module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Westerkull to predictably provide a device with dual capabilities. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerkull in view of Cohen et al.as applied to claims 13-17, 21-23 and 29 above, and further in view of MacDonald et al.
Re claim 18: The teaching of Westerkull in view of Cohen et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach an ear hook for enclosing the hearing device and which is comprised of an out component and an inner wire. MacDonald et al. teaches in a similar environment to use ear hooks that have an inner wire covered by outer component (See figure 7 along with column 1, lines 62-67 allowing the hook to be shaped and thereafter maintain its shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such ear hook arrangements (MacDonald et al.) into the hearing aid arrangement of Westerkull in view of Cohen et al. as applied to predictably allow the ear hook to be shaped and thereafter maintain its shape. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerkull in view of Cohen et al.as applied to claims 13-17, 21-23 and 29 above, and further in view of Good et al.
Re claim 19: The teaching of Westerkull in view of Cohen et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach to use a dual hook arrangement as set forth. Good et al. teaches in a similar environment to use an ear hook with dual hook portions (See figures 2B and 2D) providing added stability when attaching a device around a user’s ear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before ethe filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Westerkull in view of Cohen et al. as applied to predictably provide added stability when attaching a device around a user’s ear. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 20: note the arrangement in Good et al. allows for any type of wearable device that includes a snap connection similar to that used in Good et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12, 24-28, 30-31 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 and to correct any issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The claimed system including in combination those features of claim 1 that additionally include in combination a magnetic stimulator configured to provide magnetic stimulation using a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil or a DC motor, a hearing mode activator configured to change the hearing mode of the hearing device through a button provided on the hearing device, a wireless transceiver comprising Bluetooth communication to connect the hearing device to a user’s device; and an outer groove part formed around the peripheral of the hearing device that enables the hearing device to be fitted into the device enclosing part as set forth in claim 8 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 9 depend upon those features of claim 8/1. The claimed system including in combination those features of claim 1 that additionally include in combination a head band for attaching the hearing device, comprising: an elongated band support that surrounds and covers the behind part of the head when worn by the user; a pair of device supporting sections configured to be place behind the ear when worn by the user, so that the hearing device can be placed behind the ear of the user and firmly supported on either of the head band; and a pair of end sections configured to sit in front of the ears when worn by the user to support the head band as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 11-12 depend upon those features of claim 10/1. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 16 that additionally include in combination a magnetic stimulator configured to provide magnetic stimulation using a transcranial magnetic stimulation coil or a DC motor, a hearing mode activator configured to change the hearing mode of the hearing device through a button provided on the hearing device, a wireless transceiver comprising Bluetooth communication to connect the hearing device to a user’s device; and an outer groove part formed around the peripheral of the hearing device that enables the hearing device to be fitted into the device enclosing part as set forth in claim 24 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 25, 30 and 31 are believed to depend from those features of claim 24/16. The claimed method including in combination those features of claim 16 that additionally include in combination a head band for attaching the hearing device, comprising: an elongated band support that surrounds and covers the behind part of the head when worn by the user; a pair of device supporting sections configured to be place behind the ear when worn by the user, so that the hearing device can be placed behind the ear of the user and firmly supported on either of the head band; and a pair of end sections configured to sit in front of the ears when worn by the user to support the head band as set forth in claim 26 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 27 and 28 are believed to depend from those features of claim 26/16 and 27/26/16 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 11/1/25