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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated 10/30/2024, claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
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, 8-10, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansen et al (US 20230319494 A1) hereinafter Johansen.
Regarding claim 1, Johansen teaches a hearing device (“In the following various exemplary embodiments of the disclosed hearing device are described with reference to the appended drawings” in ¶[0061]) comprising: a housing (“an earmould 3, which may be part of an in-the-ear (ITE) part 1 of a hearing device. A connector 21 connects a receiver 11 within a receiver housing 25 arranged in the earmold 3” in ¶[0072]) comprising a receiver cavity (“The earmould is configured such that the front end can be positioned to face the tympanic membrane of the user's ear canal during use of the hearing device. A receiver housing 25 is arranged within the earmould such that sound produced by the receiver will exit the earmould via the front opening 9 at the front end” in ¶[0074] and receiver 13 is inside the earmold 3 in Fig. 2A); a back vented receiver (“a sound passage extending between the front opening and the rear end of the earmould, where the sound passage is configured to allow for fluid to flow between the front opening and an outside of the ear canal during use of the hearing device.” in ¶[0002] and 13 in Fig 2A); and a receiver suspension (“In some embodiments, the earmould further comprises a flexible and resilient element that is configured to cushion the receiver housing against an inside wall of the earmould” in ¶[0039]); wherein the receiver suspension is made of a foam material (“The flexible and resilient element may comprise a foam material” in ¶[0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising wherein the housing (earmold 3 in Fig. 2A) comprises a frame (“The receiver housing 25 is held within the earmould by a supporting structure, which comprises a plurality of supporting structures 41, 43” in ¶[0075]), and wherein the back vented receiver is attached to the frame via the receiver suspension (“A first supporting structure 41 extends from the inside wall 27 closer to the rear end than the front end.” in ¶[0075] and “A part of the first supporting structure 41 has a shape that allows the receiver housing 25 to fit within it” in ¶[0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Johansen teaches the device of claim 8, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising a shell attached to the frame (See Fig. 2A frames 41 and 43 have a long lip extending toward the rear end 10 forming a shell).
Regarding claim 10, Johansen teaches the device of claim 8, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising a Printed Circuit Board coupled to the frame (“A connector 21 connects a receiver 11 within a receiver housing 25 arranged in the earmould 3 to another part of the hearing device, such as a BTE part” in ¶[0085]).
Regarding claim 12, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising wherein the receiver suspension covers at least a part of a back vent of the back vented receiver (In Fig. 2A receiver suspension 3 which is the earmold covers 100 # of the vents 13).
Regarding claim 13, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising wherein the receiver suspension covers 10% to 100% of a surface of the back vented receiver (In Fig. 2A receiver suspension 3 which is the earmold covers 100 # of the vents 13).
Regarding claim 14, Johansen teaches the device of claim 13, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising wherein the surface of the back vented receiver (surface of 11 in Fig. 2A ) is an outer surface of the back vented receiver (surface area is an exterior surface in the 55 region in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 15, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising wherein the receiver suspension comprises one or more openings Molding 3 of Fig. 2A shows openings in front 9 and rear opening 7).
Regarding claim 16, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen further teaches the device further comprising wherein the hearing device comprises a sealing can (“The earmould 3 has an active vent 13, which has a valve that is positioned in-between the receiver 11 and the front opening 9. Thus, when the valve in the vent is closed, fluid is hindered in its movement between the front opening 9 and the rear end 7” in ¶[0068]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen et al (US 20230319494 A1) hereinafter Johansen in view of Almeflo (US 20150092974 A1) hereinafter Almeflo.
Regarding claim 2, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the foam material is an open cell foam however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Almeflo for a device to further comprise wherein the foam material is an open cell foam in (“A typical STM includes an open-cell foam material and a thin membrane--see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,808,243 to McCormick et al. These parts reside between the transducer and the sound source. The foam provides mechanical and wind buffeting protection,” in ¶[0002]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Johansen with the teachings of Almeflo for the benefit of improving the sound quality, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johansen with Almeflo.
Regarding claim 3, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the foam material is polyurethane-based however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Almeflo for a device to further comprise wherein the foam material is polyurethane-based in (“he foam provides mechanical and wind buffeting protection, while the membrane provides resistance to water or particulate intrusion. The thin membrane may be in the form of a thin polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) plastic film or similar material such as an acoustic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane” in ¶[0002]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Johansen with the teachings of Almeflo for the benefit of improving the sound quality, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johansen with Almeflo.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen et al (US 20230319494 A1) hereinafter Johansen in view of Epstein et al. (US 20250084587 A1) hereinafter Epstein.
Regarding claim 4, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the foam material has a Young’s Modulus in a range from 0.01MPa to 1MPa however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Epstein for a device to further comprise wherein the foam material has a Young’s Modulus in a range from 0.01MPa to 1MPa in (“n embodiments, the elastic modulus of the thermoplastic elastomer may be no more than about 9 MPa, no more than about 8 MPa, no more than about 7 MPa, no more than about 6 MPa, no more than about 5 MPa, no more than about 4 MPa, no more than about 3 MPa, no more than about 2 MPa, no more than about 1 MPa, no more than about 0.9 MPa, no more than about 0.8 MPa, no more than about 0.7 MPa, no more than about 0.6 MPa, no more than about 0.5 MPa, no more than about 0.4 MPa, no more than about 0.3 MPa, or no more than about 0.2 MPa” in ¶[0036]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Johansen with the teachings of Epstein for the benefit of improving the softness of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Johansen with Epstein.
Regarding claim 5, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the foam material has a density in a range from 100kg/m3 to 561kg/m3 however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Epstein for a device to further comprise wherein the foam material has a density in a range from 100kg/m3 to 561kg/m3 in (“In embodiments, the second polymer may have a density of from about 0.90 g/cm.sup.3 to about 1.28 g/cm.sup.3” in ¶[0052]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Johansen with the teachings of Epstein for the benefit of improving the softness of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Johansen with Epstein.
Regarding claim 6, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the receiver suspension is in a form of a foam sheet however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Epstein for a device to further comprise wherein the receiver suspension is in a form of a foam sheet in (“In embodiments, the biomaterial textile composition may be in the form of a sheet” in ¶[0176]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Johansen with the teachings of Epstein for the benefit of improving the softness of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Johansen with Epstein.
Regarding claim 7, Johansen as modified by Epstein teaches the device of claim 6, Epstein further teaches the device further comprising wherein the foam sheet has a thickness in a range from 0.3mm to 2mm (“individual layers or sheets thereof may be manufactured to have a thickness of between about 0.1 mm and about 10 cm, or alternatively a thickness in any range having a lower bound of any number of tenths of millimeters between 0.1 mm and 10 cm” in ¶[0273]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansen et al (US 20230319494 A1) hereinafter Johansen in view of Nakayama et al. (US 20230102696 A1) hereinafter Nakayama.
Regarding claim 11, Johansen teaches the device of claim 1, Johansen does not specifically disclose the device further comprising wherein the foam material has a compression of 25% of an original thickness of the foam material when the form material is compressed by a pressure in a range from 5kPa to 10kPa however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Nakayama for a device to further comprise wherein the foam material has a compression of 25% of an original thickness of the foam material when the form material is compressed by a pressure in a range from 5kPa to 10kPa in (“The foam as a flexible body may be a foam having a 25% compression load of 1 to 2000 kPa measured in accordance with JIS K6400-2: 2012” in ¶[0032]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Johansen with the teachings of Nakayama for the benefit of improving the softness of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johansen with Nakayama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
AMMAR T. HAMID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights