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 filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s arguments about the Helgeson et al reference does not disclose the amendment that calls for the at least one electronic component exposed for external access includes more than one connector configured as a contact pad; the examiner maintains. Helgeson discloses where folded substrate circuit includes external contact pads, whereby the external contact pads comprise at least two pogo pins at the exterior of the hearing device (fig. 8A: spring loaded contacts 808; figs. 9A-9B: spring loaded contacts 908; paras 0034-0036).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 has 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 1-3, 5 & 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helgeson et al, US Patent Pub. 20170134870 A1, in view of Juneau et al, US Patent Pub. 20080063231 A1.
Re Claim 1, Helgeson et al discloses a hearing instrument (abstract: hearing assistance device) comprising: an electronic module including a folded substrate (para 0031: behind-the-ear housing of the hearing assistance device; para 0032: folded substrate); and at least one electronic component attached to the substrate and exposed by the external surface of the electronic module (abstract: hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate, where components of the hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate are exposed on the external surface of the hearing assistance housing as illustrated in figs. 3, 8A, 9A-9B; paras 0023, 0034-0036: substrate can be mounted within the hearing assistance device such that part of it is exposed on the faceplate of the hearing assistance device housing as illustrated in figs. 3, 8A, 9A-9B), wherein the folded substrate is a printed circuit board (PCB) (para 0020: flexible circuit where flexible circuit is a type of flexible printed board circuit) for external access (abstract: hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate, where components of the hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate are exposed on the external surface of the hearing assistance housing as illustrated in fig. 3; para 0023: substrate can be mounted within the hearing assistance device such that part of it is exposed on the faceplate of the hearing assistance device housing as illustrated in fig. 3), wherein the at least one electronic component exposed for external access includes more than one connector configured as a contact pad (fig. 8A: spring loaded contacts 808; figs. 9A-9B: spring loaded contacts 908; paras 0034-0036: spring loaded contacts are mounted on the substrate and on the external surface on the hearing device, wherein there are at least two(more than one) spring loaded contacts); but fails to disclose an embedding material forming an external shape and external surface of the electronic module, the folded substrate being encapsulated by the embedding material. However, Juneau et al teaches the concept of using an embedding material to encapsulate electronic components of a hearing aid device (Juneau et al, para 0031: electronic components are encapsulated or embedded within a soft fill material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Helgeson et al device such that its electronic component mounted folded substrate can be encapsulated or embedded within a soft fill material as taught in Juneau et al for the purpose of designing the hearing device to minimize how frequently hearing device is returned for modification and also providing cushion for the electronic components.
Re Claim 2, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the embedding material is configured to connect a plurality of physical components of the electronic module together relative to one another and configured to allow relative movement between the plurality of physical components. Since electronic components are encapsulated within embedding material (Juneau et al, para 0031: electronic components are encapsulated within embedding material), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Helgeson et al where its electronic mounted folded substrate is embedded within a material, such that the embedded material will remain connected to other components such as battery of Helgeson et al for the purpose of maintaining the physical connections of components within the hearing device of Helgeson et al.
Re Claim 3, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the embedding material is configured to fix a plurality of physical components of the electronic module together. Since electronic components are encapsulated within embedding material (Juneau et al, para 0031: electronic components are encapsulated within embedding material), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Helgeson et al where its electronic mounted folded substrate is embedded within a material, such that the embedded material will remain connected to other components such as battery of Helgeson et al for the purpose of maintaining the physical connections of components within the hearing device of Helgeson et al.
Re Claim 5, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 4, wherein the embedding material comprises silicon or polyurethane (Juneau et al, para 0031: silicone material is selected from the Markush claim language).
Re Claim 7, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic component is exposed at a recess of the external surface (Helgeson et al, abstract: hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate, where components of the hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate are exposed on the external surface of the hearing assistance housing as illustrated in fig. 3; para 0023: substrate can be mounted within the hearing assistance device such that part of it is exposed on the faceplate of the hearing assistance device housing as illustrated in fig. 3).
Re Claim 8, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the embedding material is configured to prevent damage upon dropping of the electronic module (Juneau et al, paras 0031, 0085: embedded material acts to cushion electronic components within the hearing device).
Re Claim 9, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the electronic module does not include a rack. However, it would have been obvious to modify the Helgeson et al and Juneau et al such that based on a design choice by the manufacturers then its embedding material holds the electronic components in such a manner were other structural components i.e. racks are no longer needed thus making the hearing device more compact and generally lighter.
Re Claim 10, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery. Since Helgeson et al discloses a battery within its hearing device (Helgeson et al, abstract; paras 0004, 0016, 0022: battery), official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of utilizing a rechargeable battery are well known in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Helgeson et al such that it utilizes a rechargeable battery for the purpose of minimizing battery costs.
Re Claim 11, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic component exposed for external access additionally includes one or more of a port, a microphone inlet, a switch, a PCB, an LED, and a lightguide (Helgeson et al, para 0022: microphone port 327 mounted on the face plate of the hearing assistance device as illustrated in fig. 3; wherein microphone inlet is selected from the Markush claim language).
Re Claim 12, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic component is exposed by the external surface at a respective restricted area (Helgeson et al, abstract: hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate, where components of the hearing assistance electronics mounted on the substrate are exposed on the external surface of the hearing assistance housing as illustrated in fig. 3; para 0023: substrate can be mounted within the hearing assistance device such that part of it is exposed on the faceplate of the hearing assistance device housing as illustrated in fig. 3).
Claims 4, 6 & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helgeson et al, US Patent Pub. 20170134870 A1, and Juneau et al, US Patent Pub. 20080063231 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wagner et al, US Patent Pub. 20130129127 A1. (The Wagner et al reference is cited in IDS filed 10/24/2024)
Re Claim 4, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the embedding material is an epoxy. However, Wagner et al discloses a hearing device that teaches the concept of utilizing an embedding material to embed the electronic components therewithin (Wagner et al, para 0015: electronic components within encapsulant material; para 0085), where the encapsulant material could include epoxy where the epoxy being hardened by UV curing (Wagner et al, para 0086). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the soft fill material of Juneau et al to be an epoxy material being hardened by UV curing as taught in Wagner et al for the purpose of creating durable embedding materials.
Re Claim 6, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the embedding material is a UV curable material. However, Wagner et al discloses a hearing device that teaches the concept of utilizing an embedding material to embed the electronic components therewithin (Wagner et al, para 0015: electronic components within encapsulant material; para 0085), where the encapsulant material could include epoxy where the epoxy being hardened by UV curing (Wagner et al, para 0086). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the soft fill material of Juneau et al to be an epoxy material being hardened by UV curing as taught in Wagner et al for the purpose of creating durable embedding materials.
Re Claim 13, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al and Juneau et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 12, but fail to disclose wherein each respective restricted area is at least partially surrounded by an attachment zone, the attachment zone including an attachment material configured to attached to a masking material. However, Wagner et al discloses a hearing device system that teaches the concept of using an encapsulation material 300 for the electronic components within the hearing device whereby certain areas will not be covered by the encapsulant material 300 with those areas added within a sub-assembly (Wagner et al, para 0085: areas not covered by encapsulant material 300 is interpreted as the attachment zone creating thee restricted area, with the attachment zone being within the sub-assembly 55), where the shape of the inner surface of the mold will correspond to the shape of the outer surface of the encapsulant material 300 such that portions not covered by the encapsulant material 300 will be in contact with the inner surface of the mold (Wagner et al, para 0085); wherein a cylindrical rod can be place into receiver sound port (Wagner et al, para 0085: rod read as the masking material is placed therewithin to prevent material from entering aperture thus creating a restriction zone). It would have been obvious to modify the Helgeson et al and Juneau et al device such that it includes a sub-assembly as taught in Wagner et al to buffer the embedded material covered electronic components from the rest of the hearing device components and also a masking material such as rod as taught in Wagner et al to prevent the embedded material from entering cavities within the embedded electronic components.
Re Claim 14, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al, Juneau et al and Wagner et al disclose the hearing aid of claim 13, wherein the attachment material has a mold part formed by molding and a freely formed edge facing the restricted area (Wagner et al, para 0085: areas not covered by encapsulant material 300 is interpreted as the attachment zone creating thee restricted area, with the attachment zone being within the sub-assembly 55), but fails to explicitly disclose the freely formed edge having a curve. However, it would have been obvious to modify Wagner et al such that its sub-assembly/attachment material can be shaped in any shape, including with a curved edge that can form boundaries for the restricted areas to fit whatever hearing device structure shape thus making the sub-assembly adaptable to different hearing device shapes.
Re Claim 15, the combined teachings of Helgeson et al, Juneau et al and Wagner et al disclose the hearing instrument of claim 13, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the attachment zone comprises a curved edge forming a boundary with each of the plurality of restricted areas. However, it would have been obvious to modify Wagner et al such that its sub-assembly/attachment material can be shaped in any shape, including with a curved edge that can form boundaries for the restricted areas to fit whatever hearing device structure shape thus making the sub-assembly adaptable to different hearing device shapes.
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 09/30/2026
