DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application field on field on 11/15/2024, in which claims 1-14 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 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 4-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No.12,177,136B2 (Treue et al.; hereinafter, “Treue”) in view of WO2018068844 (DICKMANN et al.; hereinafter, “DICKMANN”).
In response to claim 1,
Treue teaches a hearing aid, configured to be worn at or around a user’s ear, the hearing aid comprising: a single radio-frequency antenna (claim 1, paragraph 2 teaches this limitation); and
wireless communication circuitry connected to the single radio-frequency antenna, the wireless communication circuitry being configured to perform real-time communications of multiple protocols via the single radio-frequency antenna (claim 1, paragraph 2 teaches this limitation),
Treue does not teach explicitly about wherein the multiple protocols utilize the same carrier frequency.
DICKMANN in view of Treue teaches wherein the multiple protocols utilize the same carrier frequency (page 4, lines 8-12, BT classic, BTLE+proprietary protocols are equated to multiple protocols, 2.4GHz band is equated to a carrier frequency, using the BT classic and BTLE+propreiety protocols within the same frequency band (2.4 GHz) teaches this limitation).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Treue for using a multiple protocols utilize the same carrier frequency as taught by DICKMANN because it would provide a relatively user-convenient handling of connectivity of a hearing device to a plurality of client devices via a wireless interface.
In response to claim 2,
Treue does not teach explicitly about claim 2.
DICKMANN in view of Treue teaches wherein the hearing aid is part of a binaural system including a second hearing aid at the user’s other ear (page 3, lines 13-21 teaches this limitation),
wherein the hearing aid is configured to communicate with the second hearing aid via one of the multiple protocols (page 4, lines 8-12, BT classic, BTLE+proprietary protocols are equated to multiple protocols, page 3, lines 22 to page 4, line 4, line 4, exchanging data between two hearing devices teaches this limitation), and
communicate with an external device via another one of the multiple protocols (page 4, lines 5-7, client device is equated to an external device, providing data exchange (via an interface) from or to a client device explicitly teaches this limitation).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Treue for using a hearing aid is part of a binaural system including a second hearing aid at the user’s other ear, wherein the hearing aid is configured to communicate with the second hearing aid via one of the multiple protocols and communicate with an external device via another one of the multiple protocols as taught by DICKMANN because it would provide a relatively user-convenient handling of connectivity of a hearing device to a plurality of client devices via a wireless interface.
In response to claim 3,
Treue does not teach explicitly about claim 3.
DICKMANN in view of Treue teaches wherein the wireless communication device facilitates wireless communication between a mobile phone and the second hearing aid (fig. 1, element 44 is equated to a mobile device, page 4, lines 5-7, providing data exchange (via an interface) from or to a client device explicitly teaches this limitation).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Treue for using a wireless communication device facilitates wireless communication between a mobile phone and the second hearing aid as taught by DICKMANN because it would provide a relatively user-convenient handling of connectivity of a hearing device to a plurality of client devices via a wireless interface.
In response to claim 4,
Treue teaches wherein the single radio-frequency antenna is configured to stream audio packets wireless between the wireless communication device and the external device (claim 3 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 5,
Treue teaches wherein a plugin port of the wireless communication device is mounted on top of or below the single radio-frequency antenna (claim 4 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 6,
Treue teaches wherein the single radio-frequency antenna comprises an internal parasitic element (claim 5 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 7,
Treue teaches wherein the single radio-frequency antenna includes an antenna element having an electrical length of one of: λ/4; x*λ/4 + λ/2; and x*λ/4 - λ/2; wherein x is an odd number ≥ 3 (claim 10 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 8,
Treue teaches wherein the single radio-frequency antenna operates within a frequency range of 2.4 to 5.5 GHz (claim 11 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 9,
Treue teaches wherein an antenna element is arranged at the end of the single radio-frequency antenna (claim 12 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 10,
Treue teaches wherein the hearing aid is configured to perform a first communication event and a second communication event via the multiple protocols (claim 17, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation), wherein:
the hearing aid comprises a first processing unit configured to perform the first communication event within a first communication window by the use of one of the multiple protocols(claim 17, paragraph 2 teaches this limitation);
the second processing unit is configured to perform the second communication event within a second communication window by the use of a different one of the multiple protocols; the wireless communication circuitry is configured to transmit and/or receive a packet (claim 17, paragraph 3 teaches this limitation); and
the first processing unit is configured to perform the first communication event of the packet via the wireless communication circuitry, and the second processor is configured to perform the second communication event of the packet via the wireless communication circuitry (claim 17, paragraph 4 teaches this limitation); and
the second processing unit is configured to transmit an event signal to the first processor when performing the second communication event, and the first processor is configured to arrange the first communication window with respect to the second communication window based on the event signal to minimize interference between the first communication window and the second communication window (claim 17, paragraph 5 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 11,
Treue teaches wherein the single radio-frequency antenna includes first and second antenna elements, wherein one end of the first antenna element is connected to a ground plane via the second antenna element, the second antenna element extending along a second side of the single radio-frequency antenna substantially perpendicular to a first side (claim 14, paragraph 1 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 12,
Treue teaches wherein the single radio-frequency antenna includes first, second, and third antenna elements (claim 1, paragraphs 1-2 teach this limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
As for dependent claim 13, this claim is objected, because this claim does not have double patenting issue. There is also no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein a distance between points where the second and third antenna elements are respectively connected to the first antenna element is determined according to a current or voltage distribution along the first antenna element.”
The closest prior art in the record DICKMANN et al.’s (WO2018068844) teaches about using a hearing device with multiprotocol, but the fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 14, this claim is objected, because this claim does not have double patenting issue. There is also no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein, at a point between respective ends of the first antenna element, the third antenna element connects the first antenna element to a current feeding unit, the third antenna element extending from the first antenna element to the current feeding unit in a direction substantially parallel to a side of the single radio-frequency antenna, the current feeding unit being configured to provide a current to the first antenna element via the third antenna element.”
The closest prior art in the record DICKMANN et al.’s (WO2018068844) teaches about using a hearing device with multiprotocol, but the fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20110090126…………………..paragraph 28.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights