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 § 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.
Claims 4-5, 10, 14 and 16 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.
Regarding claims 4-5, 10 and 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 14, and is therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reason as parent claim 14.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub No 2023/0057158 A1 to Mohammadi et al. (“Mohammadi”).
As to claim 1, Mohammadi discloses a miniature receiver for a hearing device, said miniature receiver comprising 1) an oblong housing (housing 110, see figures 1-11; pg. 1, ¶ 0001 - ¶ 0002; pg. 2, ¶ 0026), 2) a sound output port arranged in the oblong housing (see pg. 1, ¶ 0023 - ¶ 0024), 3) a hinged diaphragm arranged within the oblong housing and separating a front volume and a rear volume within the oblong housing (diaphragm 150, see figure 10; pg. 2, ¶ 0028, ¶ 0030), wherein the hinged diaphragm comprises a hinged portion and a moveable portion (hinge(s) 158 and paddle 152, see figure 10), and wherein at least the moveable portion of the hinged diaphragm is adapted to vibrate in response to a drive signal applied to a voice coil secured to the moveable portion of the diaphragm (see figure 10; pg. 1, ¶ 0024; pg. 2, ¶ 0028), and 4) a magnetic motor arranged within the oblong housing, wherein the magnetic motor is adapted to generate a static magnetic field in an air gap within which at least part of the voice coil is positioned (see figures 1-8; pg. 1, ¶ 0023; pg. 3, ¶ 0032 - ¶ 0033).
As to claim 2, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the hinged diaphragm is hinged to a frame structure, and wherein one or more openings exist between the hinged diaphragm and the frame structure (frame 154, see figure 10; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 3, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the hinged portion of the hinged diaphragm is hinged to a frame structure via one or more discrete and separate hinges and/or via one or more integrated hinges (hinge(s) 158, see figure 10; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 4, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the hinged diaphragm and the frame structure form an integrated structure of the same material, such as metal including aluminium (see figure 10; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 6, Mohammadi further discloses wherein at least part of the hinged diaphragm comprises an embossed part for increasing the stiffness of the diaphragm (see figures 10 and 12-13; pg. 2, ¶ 0029).
As to claim 9, Mohammadi further discloses wherein an air venting opening is arranged in the oblong housing of the miniature receiver, and wherein the air venting opening is displaced relative to the magnetic motor (vent 119/121 or port 112, see figures 1-3 and 16-17; pg. 2, ¶ 0030 - ¶ 0031; pg. 3, ¶ 0038).
As to claim 10, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the air venting opening is adapted to vent the rear volume of the miniature receiver, and wherein the air venting opening comprises an acoustical filter element forming an acoustical filter, such as an acoustical low-pass filter (vent with damping material, see pg. 2, ¶ 0030 - ¶ 0031).
As to claim 11, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the oblong housing is defined by first and second oblong housing parts in combination, wherein the sound outlet port is arranged in the first oblong housing part, and wherein the air venting opening is arranged in the second oblong housing part (vent 119 in side wall 116/117, port 112 in portion 165, see figures 8 and 12; pg. 2, ¶ 0030 - ¶ 0031; pg. 3, ¶ 0034).
As to claim 12, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the magnetic motor comprises a stacked arrangement of a permanent magnet and an inner yoke, wherein the permanent magnet and the inner yoke are at least partly arranged within an outer yoke so that an air gap is provided between the inner yoke and the outer yoke within which air gap the voice coil is at least partly arranged (see figures 1-8; pg. 3, ¶ 0032 - ¶ 0033).
As to claim 13, Mohammadi further discloses wherein the magnetic motor comprises a stacked arrangement of a permanent magnet and an inner yoke, wherein the permanent magnet and the inner yoke are at least partly arranged within an outer yoke formed by a portion of the oblong housing (see figures 7-8; pg. 3, ¶ 0032 - ¶ 0034).
As to claim 14, Mohammadi further discloses an audio assembly for a hearing device, the audio assembly comprising a nozzle comprising a sound channel and a sound outlet acoustically connected to the sound channel, wherein a miniature receiver according to claim 1 is at least partly positioned in the nozzle, such as at least partly positioned in the sound channel of the nozzle (see claim 1 rejection; figure 17; pg. 3, ¶ 0037 - ¶ 0038).
As to claim 15, Mohammadi further discloses a hearing device comprising the miniature receiver according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection; figures 15-17; pg. 3, ¶ 0037 - ¶ 0038).
As to claim 16, Mohammadi further discloses a hearing device comprising the audio assembly according to claim 14 (see claim 14 rejection; figure 17; pg. 3, ¶ 0037 - ¶ 0038).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadi in view of US Patent Pub No 2019/0069091 A1 to Bruins et al. (“Bruins”).
As to claim 5, Mohammadi discloses the miniature receiver according to claim 2.
Mohammadi does not disclose wherein the one or more openings between the hinged diaphragm and the frame structure are at least partly be sealed or filled with a flexible sealing member, such as a corrugated polymer film or a viscoelastic substance. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Bruins, which teaches a similar hinged diaphragm structure (see figures 2 and 6), and further discloses the use of a resilient element 29 between the diaphragm and the frame to provide a sealing function (see figure 6; pg. 2, ¶ 0030 - ¶ 0031, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036; pg. 4, ¶ 0071; pg. 8, ¶ 0161). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to ensure the diaphragm is sufficiently sealed and ensure as much air as possible is removed, which improves efficiency (Bruins pg. 2, ¶ 0026).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadi.
As to claim 7, Mohammadi discloses the miniature receiver according to claim 1.
Mohammadi further discloses wherein the hinged diaphragm has an oblong shape (see figure 10; pg. 2, ¶ 0026 - ¶ 0027), but does not expressly disclose wherein the length of the hinged diaphragm in the oblong direction is at least twice the width of the diaphragm. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the diaphragm size and shape variations as taught by Mohammadi, and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the length of the hinged diaphragm in the oblong direction being at least twice the width of the diaphragm is considered an obvious variation of the oblong rectangular shape already taught by Mohammadi, therefore a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not be considered patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As to claim 8, Mohammadi does not expressly disclose wherein the length of the hinged diaphragm in the oblong direction is at least twice the diameter or the width of the voice coil secured to the moveable portion of the diaphragm. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the diaphragm and coil size and shape variations as taught by Mohammadi (see figures 9-10; pgs. 1-2, ¶ 0025 - ¶ 0028), and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the length of the hinged diaphragm in the oblong direction being at least twice the diameter or the width of the voice coil secured to the moveable portion of the diaphragm is considered an obvious variation of the diaphragm and coil shapes already taught by Mohammadi, therefore a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not be considered patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights