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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/28/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 (hereinafter instant claims 1 and 11) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 (hereinafter patent claim 14) of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,495 in view of Brielbeck (DE 102014113002 using an English machine translation).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 11: Patent claim 14 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 1 and 11, except that patent claim 14 fails to claim that the image data is electronic image data.
Brielbeck discloses that an image sensor such as a camera provides electronic image data (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the image sensor to be a camera, in which case it will provide electronic image data, the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one image sensor for another to obtain predictable results of an image sensor that provides image data. See MPEP § 2143(B).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coughlan et al. (US 2009/0060240).
Regarding claim 1, Coughlan discloses a method, comprising:
identifying one or more optical components (identify left or right ear of specific individual) using electronic image data provided by an image sensor (¶ 0023-0024);
determining one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0022: hearing aid receiving audio information as electro-magnetic field via telecoil is an assistive listening technology) using at least the one or more optical components (¶ 0037: determines which telecoil to use (and thus which of the first through fourth technologies set forth above to use) based on the identified ear/individual); and
connecting (via utilizing telecoil) a hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 3, Coughlan discloses a method of claim 1, comprising connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using one or more communication devices (e.g., using one of the two inductive coils 1002 or 1003 in Fig. 10 as communication devices) (¶ 0022).
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) 1-4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (GB 2476675) in view of Brielbeck (DE 102014113002 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses a method, comprising:
identifying one or more optical components (26) using
determining one or more assistive listening technologies (induction loop with telecoil) using at least the one or more optical components (paragraph spanning pages 4-5 indicates that human will determine that induction loop/telecoil technology is available based on recognizing the symbol); and
connecting a hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (paragraph spanning pages 4-5: human will switch hearing aid to the telecoil mode).
Thomas is not relied upon to disclose that the image data is electronic image data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Brielbeck discloses a visual aid device worn by a human, with an image sensor (camera 07, 08) that provides electronic image data (output of camera) to be presented to the human for viewing on a monitor (05, 06) (Abstract and see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the human of Thomas to wear the visual aid device of Brielbeck,
which would result in: identifying one or more optical components (26) using electronic image data (output of camera 07, 08 of Brielbeck) provided by an image sensor (camera of Brielbeck) (Thomas - page 5, lines 4-10 indicates that a human sees the symbol 26 using their eye and recognizes/identifies the symbol; and thus, in light of the combination of Thomas-Brielbeck set forth above, the human, wearing the visual aid device, will use the visual aid device (and thus also use the electronic image data output of the camera) to view the symbol on the monitor and recognize/identify the symbol),
the motivation being to provide visual aid to an individual with impaired vision (Brielbeck - ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and Thomas discloses wherein the one or more optical components includes a symbol or text indicating the availability of the one or more assistive listening technologies and wherein determining the one or more assistive listening technologies is in response to identifying the symbol or text (page 4, line 20 to page 5, line 10).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and Thomas discloses comprising connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using one or more communication devices (page 4, line 20 to page 5, line 10: using the telecoil in the hearing aid).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and Thomas discloses wherein connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies comprises placing the hearing device in a telecoil or loop mode (page 4, line 20 to page 5, line 10: telecoil mode and induction loop mode).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and Thomas discloses comprising alerting a user of the hearing device to the availability of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies, and providing the user with instructions on how to use the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (page 4, line 20 to page 5, line 10: 26 provides the human with instructions of: “to use the induction loop facility, switch your hearing aid to T and stand here”; and the instructions are also considered to be the alert).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over National Deaf Center Assistive Listening Systems 101 hereinafter NDC in view of Wikipedia (https://web.archive.org/web/20190420003759/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owner%27s_manual) in view of Brielbeck.
Regarding claim 1, NDC discloses a method, comprising:
connecting a hearing device to
NDC is not relied upon to disclose
identifying one or more optical components using electronic image data provided by an image sensor;
determining one or more assistive listening technologies using at least the one or more optical components; and
connecting a hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wikipedia discloses an owner’s manual being used to provide a user with setup instructions and instructions for normal or intended operations (see first paragraph: bullets 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure an owner’s manual to provide a user with setup instructions that detail what steps to take to connect the hearing device to at least one of the assistive listening technologies listed on pages 5-6 of NDC,
which would result in:
identifying one or more optical components (text instructions printed in the owner’s manual) using
determining one or more assistive listening technologies using at least the one or more optical components (the user, after comprehending the instructions, will determine the assistive listening technology can be used); and
connecting a hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (the user, carrying out the instructions, will connect the hearing aid to the assistive listening technology),
the motivation being to provide the user of the hearing aid with instructions for using the hearing aid (Wikipedia - first paragraph).
NDC-Wikipedia is not relied upon to disclose that the image data is electronic image data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Brielbeck discloses a visual aid device worn by a human, with an image sensor (camera 07, 08) that provides electronic image data (output of camera) to be presented to the human for viewing on a monitor (05, 06) (Abstract and see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the human/user of NDC-Wikipedia to wear the visual aid device of Brielbeck,
which would result in: identifying one or more optical components (text instructions printed in the owner’s manual) using electronic image data (output of camera 07, 08 of Brielbeck) provided by an image sensor (camera of Brielbeck) (the hearing aid user, wearing the visual aid device, will use the visual aid device (and thus also use the electronic image data output of the camera) to view the instructions of the manual on the monitor and identify the instructions as instructions for connecting the hearing aid to the assistive listening technology),
the motivation being to provide visual aid to an individual with impaired vision (Brielbeck - ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 2, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical components includes a symbol or text (owner’s manual instructions) indicating the availability of the one or more assistive listening technologies and wherein determining the one or more assistive listening technologies is in response to identifying the symbol or text (after reading and comprehending the owner’s manual instructions, the user will determine that the assistive listening technology is available with the hearing aid).
The teachings of Wikipedia relied upon above are combinable with NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 3, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and NDC discloses comprising connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using one or more communication devices (page 5, “Intermediary devices” section: using cell phone).
Regarding claim 4, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and NDC discloses wherein connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies comprises placing the hearing device in a telecoil or loop mode (page 6, “INDUCTION LOOP SYSTEMS” section: switch device to the T-Coil setting).
Regarding claim 5, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and NDC discloses wherein connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies comprises connecting the hearing device to a radio transmission connection (page 5, “Intermediary device” section: Bluetooth, which is a type of radio transmission).
Regarding claim 6, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, and NDC discloses wherein connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies comprises connecting the hearing device to a Bluetooth connection (page 5, “Intermediary device” section: Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 8, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, comprising alerting a user of the hearing device to the availability of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (instructions will alert user that the hearing aid has the assistive listening technology available), and providing the user with instructions (the instructions in the owner’s manual) on how to use the determined one or more assistive listening technologies.
The teachings of Wikipedia relied upon above are combinable with NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NDC in view of Wikipedia in view of Brielbeck in view of Calle et al. (US 2017/0072195).
Regarding claim 7, NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck discloses the method of claim 1, comprising alerting a user of the hearing device to the availability of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (instructions will alert user that the hearing aid has the assistive listening technology available),
The teachings of Wikipedia relied upon above are combinable with NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
NDC-Wikipedia-Brielbeck is not relied upon to disclose automatically switching settings of the hearing device for use of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies.
In a similar field of endeavor, Calle discloses that “If the database indicates that the detected location is within a vicinity of a telecoil loop, (and if the sound processor apparatus 104 has provided data to external computing device 704 indicating that a telecoil is included in sound processor apparatus 104), external computing device 704 may automatically enable the telecoil included within sound processor apparatus 104 and/or notify the patient that he or she may manually enable the telecoil” (¶ 0073),
put another way: alerting a user of the hearing device to the availability of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0073: “notify patient that he or she may manually enable the telecoil” if there is loop in the area), and automatically switching settings of the hearing device for use of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0073: “automatically enable the telecoil”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: If the database indicates that the detected location is within a vicinity of a telecoil loop, (and if the sound processor apparatus 104 has provided data to external computing device 704 indicating that a telecoil is included in sound processor apparatus 104), external computing device 704 may automatically enable the telecoil included within sound processor apparatus 104 and/or notify the patient that he or she may manually enable the telecoil,
which would result in: alerting a user of the hearing device to the availability of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (instructions will alert user that the hearing aid has the assistive listening technology available), and automatically switching settings of the hearing device for use of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies,
the motivation being to provide the ability for a telecoil to be enabled or disabled based on the hearing aid being located within an area having a telecoil loop (Calle - ¶ 0072).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlan in view of Calle.
Regarding claim 4, Coughlan discloses the method of claim 1.
Coughlan is not relied upon to disclose wherein connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies comprises placing the hearing device in a telecoil or loop mode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Calle discloses a hearing device configured to automatically enable telecoil functionality when a telephone receives an incoming call (i.e. when the controller of the telephone receives an incoming call) (¶ 0074). In other words, when the controller in the telephone receives an incoming call, and provides this information to the hearing device, the hearing device enables a telecoil mode for connecting to the telephone via the telecoil assistive listening technology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller in the telephone of Coughlan to, when the controller in the telephone receives an incoming call, it provides this information to the hearing device of Coughlan, and the hearing device enables a telecoil mode for connecting to the telephone via the telecoil assistive listening technology,
which would result in: wherein connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies comprises placing the hearing device in a telecoil or loop mode,
the motivation being to make enabling of the telecoil mode of the hearing device automatic (Calle - ¶ 0072-0074).
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlan in view of Frerking et al. (US 2010/0303268).
Regarding claim 9, Coughlan discloses the method of claim 1.
Coughlan is not relied upon to disclose comprising tagging a location of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using a tag, and, during a subsequent visit to the tagged location, connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using the tag.
In a similar field of endeavor, Frerking discloses tagging a location of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using a tag (¶ 0038: location of hearing device 120 is tagged), and, during a subsequent visit (of the phone 110) to the tagged location, connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using the tag (Fig. 2A: steps 204, 206, 214, 216, 218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: comprising tagging a location of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using a tag, and, during a subsequent visit to the tagged location, connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using the tag,
the motivation being to provide effective coupling of the generated inductive field with the hearing aid telecoil (Frerking - ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 10, Coughlan-Frerking discloses the method of claim 9, and Frerking discloses wherein the tag comprises information about the determined one or more assistive listening technologies including hearing device settings (location/orientation of hearing aid telecoil and hearing aid type/make/model) to connect to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0045).
The teachings of Frerking relied upon above are combinable with Coughlan-Frerking for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 9 rejection.
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlan in view of Campbell et al. (US 2011/0002493).
Regarding claim 11, Coughlan discloses a system (Fig. 3), comprising:
an image sensor (308) configured to sense optical information of an environment and produce electronic image data indicative of the sensed optical information (¶ 0021, 0023);
a hearing device (hearing aid)
a controller (303) comprising one or more processors (Fig. 5: 501) (¶ 0029) and operatively coupled to the image sensor (308) (¶ 0023 and see Fig. 3), the controller configured to receive the electronic image data to:
identify one or more optical components (identify left or right ear of specific individual) using the electronic image data (¶ 0023-0024);
determine one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0022: hearing aid receiving audio information as electro-magnetic field via telecoil is an assistive listening technology) using at least the one or more optical components (¶ 0037: determines which telecoil to use based on the identified ear/individual); and
connect (via utilizing telecoil) the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0037).
Coughlan is not relied upon to disclose the hearing device comprising a housing wearable by the user.
In a similar field of endeavor, Campbell discloses a hearing device comprising a housing wearable by a user (¶ 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure the hearing device to comprise a housing wearable by a user, the motivation being to provide protection (Campbell- ¶ 0002).
Regarding claim 13, Coughlan-Campbell discloses the system of claim 11, and Coughlan discloses wherein the controller is configured to connect the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using one or more communication devices (e.g., using one of the two inductive coils 1002 or 1003 in Fig. 10 as communication devices) (¶ 0022).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlan in view of Campbell in view of Calle.
Regarding claim 14, Coughlan-Campbell discloses the system of claim 11.
Coughlan-Campbell is not relied upon to disclose wherein the controller is configured to place the hearing device in a telecoil or loop mode for connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies.
In a similar field of endeavor, Calle discloses a hearing device configured to automatically enable telecoil functionality when a telephone receives an incoming call (i.e. when the controller of the telephone receives an incoming call) (¶ 0074). In other words, when the controller in the telephone receives an incoming call, and provides this information to the hearing device, the hearing device enables a telecoil mode for connecting to the telephone via the telecoil assistive listening technology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller in the telephone of Coughlan to, when the controller in the telephone receives an incoming call, it provides this information to the hearing device of Coughlan, and the hearing device enables a telecoil mode for connecting to the telephone via the telecoil assistive listening technology,
which would result in: wherein the controller is configured to place the hearing device in a telecoil or loop mode for connecting the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies,
the motivation being to make enabling of the telecoil mode of the hearing device automatic (Calle - ¶ 0072-0074).
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coughlan in view of Campbell in view of Frerking.
Regarding claim 19, Coughlan-Campbell discloses the system of claim 11.
Coughlan-Campbell is not relied upon to disclose wherein the controller is configured to tag a location of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using a tag, and, during a subsequent visit to the tagged location, connect the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using the tag.
In a similar field of endeavor, Frerking discloses wherein the controller is configured to tag a location of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using a tag (¶ 0038: location of hearing device 120 is tagged), and, during a subsequent visit (of the phone 110), and, during a subsequent visit (of the phone 110) to the tagged location, connect the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using the tag (Fig. 2A: steps 204, 206, 214, 216, 218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the controller is configured to tag a location of the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using a tag, and, during a subsequent visit to the tagged location, connect the hearing device to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies using the tag.
the motivation being to provide effective coupling of the generated inductive field with the hearing aid telecoil (Frerking - ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 20, Coughlan-Campbell-Frerking discloses the system of claim 19, and Frerking discloses wherein the tag comprises information about the determined one or more assistive listening technologies including hearing device settings (location/orientation of hearing aid telecoil and hearing aid type/make/model) to connect to the determined one or more assistive listening technologies (¶ 0045).
The teachings of Frerking relied upon above are combinable with Coughlan-Campbell-Frerking for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 19 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 15-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected using the reference of Thomas have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected using the references of NDC and Wikipedia have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 8-9) that:
“Coughlan as alleged does not, however, describe determining one or more assistive listening technologies using at least the one or more optical components as is recited in claim 1. Instead, Coughlan describes that the imaging module identifies an ear (left or right) to configure audio settings for that ear. See Coughlan " [0023]-[0024] (describing that the computer "utilizes imaging module 306. to identify to which ear of the user the telephone has been placed in proximity."). The identified ear is used to configure the telephone's audio output based on stored user preferences. See id. 1 [0037] (describing that the system "adjusts the telephone for the identified ear using the telephone configuration stored for that ear"). The identified ear is not used to determine assistive listening technologies. In contrast, claim 1 requires determining assistive listening technologies using the identified optical components. Coughlan does not teach at least this element of claim 1.”
In response, the examiner submits that the identified ear is used to determine which primary inductive coil to utilize out of a plurality of primary inductive coils (¶ 0022, 0037). A hearing aid receiving audio information via telecoil as an electro-magnetic field from a primary inductive coil is an assistive listening technology (¶ 0022), so utilizing one of the primary inductive coils means utilizing an assistive listening technology. Thus, determining a primary inductive coil to utilize means determining an assistive listening technology to utilize.
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 MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights