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 with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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.
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 1-10, 14, 16-17, 19-21 & 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, US Patent Pub. 20070030991 A1, in view of Panitzsch, US Patent Pub. 20010043709 A1, and further in view of Roeck et al, EP 3406087 B1.
Re Claim 1, Frederiksen discloses a hearing device (fig. 1; para 0019; hearing aid) comprising: a receiver (fig. 1: 50 – receiver assembly with receiver 60; para 0013); a battery (para 0018: battery); an outer shell (fig. 1: 1 – bottom shell; para 0019), the outer shell defining a space (fig. 1: the receiver cabinet to receive the receiver and battery; para 0015), wherein the outer shell is configured to contain the receiver and the rechargeable battery (para 0015); and a lid in the space defined by the outer shell (para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver); and a sealed inner compartment (fig. 1 – lid 20 seals the cabinet that houses the receiver and battery to form the inner compartment) in the space defined by the outer shell, wherein the sealed inner compartment is at least partly defined by the lid (para 0019); but fails to disclose the battery being a rechargeable battery. Panitzsch discloses a hearing device that includes a receiver (Panitzsch, fig. 1: 12 – speaker; para 0023) and a rechargeable battery (Panitzsch, fig. 1: 10; para 0024 – a rechargeable battery). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Frederiksen to utilize a rechargeable battery as taught in Panitzsch for the purpose of improving the power efficiency and length of the hearing device of Frederiksen.
The combined teachings Frederiksen and Panitzsch fail to explicitly disclose wherein majority of the lid is contained by the outer shell. However, Roeck et al teaches the concept of a hearing aid device that includes a rechargeable battery mounted within a lid-accessible compartment (Roeck et al, para 0034). It would have been obvious to modify the Panitzsch reference as used to modify Frederiksen such that its rechargeable battery is placed under a lid as taught in Roeck et al for the purpose of physically shielding the delicate parts of signal processing circuitry.
Re Claim 2, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising a frame inside the space defined by the outer shell, wherein the sealed inner compartment is at least partly surrounded by the frame (Frederiksen, fig. 1: 1 – bottom shell with an inner space that forms the frame to receive the receiver and battery; para 0019).
Re Claim 3, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 2, wherein the frame has an edge configured for placement of the lid (Frederiksen, fig. 1: bottom shell 1 and lid 20; para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver).
Re Claim 4, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 2, wherein the lid is fixedly secured to the frame (Frederiksen, fig. 1: bottom shell 1 and lid 20; para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver).
Re Claim 5, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 2, further comprising a bottom side opposite from the lid, wherein the frame and the bottom side are integrally formed (Frederiksen, fig. 1: bottom shell 1 and lid 20; para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver).
Re Claim 6, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 2, wherein the sealed inner compartment is a structure fixed to the frame (Frederiksen, fig. 1: bottom shell 1 and lid 20; para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver).
Re Claim 7, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 2, wherein the sealed inner compartment is a space defined by the frame (Frederiksen, fig. 1: bottom shell 1 and lid 20; para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver).
Re Claim 8, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the receiver and the rechargeable battery are both arranged in the sealed inner compartment (Frederiksen, fig. 1: bottom shell 1 and lid 20; para 0019 – the lid 20 is designed to be able to attach to bottom shell 1 which consist of a cabinet to house the battery and receiver).
Re Claim 9, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 8, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the receiver and rechargeable battery combined take up at least 40% of a volume of the sealed inner compartment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the inner frame of the bottom shell 1 of Frederiksen to be able to accommodate the receiver and battery with 40%-50% of its volume space for the purpose of assuring that the receiver and battery are easily mounted within the volume space.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Re Claim 14, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising an inductive charging coil, the inductive charging coil located inside the sealed inner compartment (Panitzsch, para 0028: recharging is carried out inductively via inductive charging coils within the inner shell compartment of Frederiksen).
Re Claim 16, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising one or more openings for accommodating electrical connections extending from a first location inside the sealed inner compartment to a second location outside the sealed inner compartment (Frederiksen, fig. 1: a hearing aid device with two shells, an inner shell and outer shell where there would be naturally electrical communication access between both shells as illustrated by the holes highlighted in fig. 1).
Re Claim 17, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 16, further comprising one or more sealings in the one or more openings (Frederiksen, fig. 1: a hearing aid device with two shells, an inner shell and outer shell where there would be naturally electrical communication access between both shells as illustrated by the holes highlighted in fig. 1).
Re Claim 19, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the sealed inner compartment comprises a receiver section for accommodating the receiver (Frederiksen, fig. 1: a hearing aid device with two shells, an inner shell and outer shell where there would be naturally electrical communication access between both shells as illustrated by the holes highlighted in fig. 1; whereby the battery section will naturally have connection to the receiver section since it powers said receiver section), and a battery section for accommodating the rechargeable battery (Frederiksen, fig. 1: a hearing aid device with two shells, an inner shell and outer shell where there would be naturally electrical communication access between both shells as illustrated by the holes highlighted in fig. 1; whereby the battery section will naturally have connection to the receiver section since it powers said receiver section), and wherein the receiver section is in fluid communication with the battery section (Frederiksen, fig. 1: a hearing aid device with two shells, an inner shell and outer shell where there would be naturally electrical communication access between both shells as illustrated by the holes highlighted in fig. 1; whereby the battery section will naturally have connection to the receiver section since it powers said receiver section).
Re Claim 20, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the sealed inner compartment is surrounded by a continuous wall extending around a perimeter of the sealed inner compartment (Frederiksen, fig. 1: inner compartment has a wall, fixed to itself, extending around itself to form a space to hold the components therewithin).
Re Claim 21, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising a structure located inside the space defined by the shell (Frederiksen, fig. 1: inner compartment has a wall, fixed to itself, extending around itself to form a space to hold the components therewithin), the structure surrounding the sealed inner compartment (Frederiksen, fig. 1: inner compartment has a wall, fixed to itself, extending around itself to form a space to hold the components therewithin), wherein the receiver and the rechargeable battery are both in the sealed inner compartment surrounded by the structure (Frederiksen, fig. 1: inner compartment has a wall, fixed to itself, extending around itself to form a space to hold the components therewithin), and wherein the structure occupies only a part, not an entirety, of the space defined by the shell (Frederiksen, fig. 1: inner compartment has a wall, fixed to itself, extending around itself to form a space to hold the components therewithin).
Re Claim 23, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the lid comprises metal. Official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using metal material as a lid within a hearing device are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to modify the Roeck device as used to modify Frederiksen and Panitzsch such that its lid is made of a metal material for the purpose of being able to block electromagnetic interference.
Re Claim 24, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, wherein the outer shell comprises a housing part that covers the lid (Roeck et al, para 0034: lid is disposed within the hearing aid device to cover the rechargeable battery whereby the lid is further covered by the outer shell of the hearing device).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, US Patent Pub. 20070030991 A1, Panitzsch, US Patent Pub. 20010043709 A1 and Roeck et al, EP 3406087 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sudan, US Patent Pub. 20150326982 A1.
Re Claim 11, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose further comprising a power management circuit in the sealed inner compartment. However, Sudan teaches the concept of a hearing aid device that includes a rechargeable battery along with a battery power management unit (Sudan, abstract). It would have been obvious to modify the Panitzsch’s rechargeable battery as used to modify Frederiksen to include a battery power management unit as taught in Sudan for the purpose of regulating power usage to optimize battery performance.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, US Patent Pub. 20070030991 A1, Panitzsch, US Patent Pub. 20010043709 A1 and Roeck et al, EP 3406087 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gomme et al, US Patent Pub. 20160344109 A1.
Re Claim 12, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but fail to disclose further comprising a magnetic induction (MI) coil, wherein the MI coil is in the space defined by the outer shell, and is outside the sealed inner compartment. However, Gomme et al discloses the concept of a hearing aid device with a MI antenna coil (Gomme et al, para 0044). It would have been obvious to modify the Frederiksen device such that it also includes an MI antenna coil as taught in Gomme et al for the purpose of enabling the hearing aid to have wireless communication. Furthermore, since there are only a few shells (inner and outer shell), it would have been obvious to try either placing the MI coil in the outer shell or in the inner shell for the purpose of placing the coil in the most optimized location with the hearing aid housing.
Re Claim 13, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but fail to disclose further comprising a magnetic induction (MI) coil, wherein the MI coil is in the sealed inner compartment. However, Gomme et al discloses the concept of a hearing aid device with a MI antenna coil (Gomme et al, para 0044). It would have been obvious to modify the Frederiksen device such that it also includes an MI antenna coil as taught in Gomme et al for the purpose of enabling the hearing aid to have wireless communication. Furthermore, since there are only a few shells (inner and outer shell), it would have been obvious to try either placing the MI coil in the outer shell or in the inner shell for the purpose of placing the coil in the most optimized location with the hearing aid housing.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, US Patent Pub. 20070030991 A1, Panitzsch, US Patent Pub. 20010043709 A1, and Roeck et al, EP 3406087 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Perri et al, US Patent Pub. 20200314566 A1.
Re Claim 15, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose further comprising a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA), wherein the printed circuit board assembly is in the space defined by the outer shell, and is outside the sealed inner compartment. However, Perri et al discloses a hearing device that includes a printed circuit board in an inner compartment within one of two shells (Perri et al, para 0041: Perri et al discloses a hearing aid device with two shells where a PCB 103 illustrated to be located in the outer shell, where the PCB includes a microphone 102 and an antenna 104 along with the hearing aid internal structure 105 where the aforementioned components are mounted within). It would have been obvious to modify the electronic components of Frederiksen to be printed circuit board assembled as taught in Perri et al for the purpose of utilizing electronic components within compact designs that are highly reliable with efficient mass production.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, US Patent Pub. 20070030991 A1, Panitzsch, US Patent Pub. 20010043709 A1 and Roeck et al, EP 3406087 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schmid, US Patent 4965831.
Re Claim 18, the combined teachings of Frederiksen, Panitzsch and Roeck et al disclose the hearing device according to claim 1, further comprising a signal processor in the space defined by the outer shell (Roeck et al, para 0005); but fail to disclose outside the sealed inner compartment. Schmid discloses where a volume control of is located on the outside shell (Schmid, fig. 2: 4; col. 2, lines 4-26: volume control is read as the signal processor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the signal processor of Roeck et al, as used to modify Frederiksen to be located at the outer shell of the hearing aid device as taught in Schmid for the purpose of being able to provide easy access for user control of the signal processor settings.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, US Patent Pub. 20070030991 A1, Panitzsch, US Patent Pub. 20010043709 A1 and Roeck et al, EP 3406087 B1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sudan, US Patent Pub. 20150326982 A1, and further in view of Gomme et al, US Patent Pub. 20160344109 A1.
Claim 22 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 11-12; but fails to explicitly disclose the lid comprises metal. Official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using metal material as a lid within a hearing device are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to modify the Roeck device as used to modify Frederiksen and Panitzsch such that its lid is made of a metal material for the purpose of being able to block electromagnetic interference.
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 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 09/15/2026
Prosecution Insights