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 1-14 are rejected because they recite the limitation "the at least one cap closing the open end of the case". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation was preceded by “at least one open end,” when reciting “the open end of the case,” it is unclear if it is referring to one of the open ends or all of “at least one open end.” In addition, the limitation can be interpreted as a plurality of caps closing one open end of the case, which is indefinite.
Claim 15 is 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. The claim recites “close the at least on open end of the case with at least one cap,” which can be interpreted as one cap being able to close more than one open end of the case. In view of the specification, it seems like what is intended to be claimed is that teach of the open ends can be closed with an end cap. In addition, the limitation can be interpreted as a plurality of caps closing one open end of the case, which is indefinite.
Claim 2 are rejected because they recite the limitation "the at least one cap closing the open end of the case". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites “in each case,” when the limitation was preceded by a singular “a case.”
Claim 8 is rejected because they recite the limitation "at least one end of some or all parallel rigid zones". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim depends on claim 1 which did not recite parallel rigid zones.
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) 1, 4, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenborn (US 2007/0071260) in view of Iseberg (US 5887070).
Regarding claim 1, Mullenborn teaches A receiver for a hearing instrument, the receiver comprising: a case having a tubular shape with at least one open end (Mullenborn figure 2e, housing 232a with opening accommodating speaker 240a and figure 2c, opening 256), a flexible or partially flexible printed circuit board populated with a plurality of MEMS receiver cells (Mullenborn figure 1c and ¶0036, “four silicon-based transducer assemblies 80a, 80b, 80c, 80d arrayed (i.e., arranged in predetermined manner) on a printed circuit board 82. Alternately, they may be arrayed on a flex-print,” ¶0034, “The transducer assembly 52 generally includes an intermediate chip 57 and a transducer chip 54 ... An opening in the transducer chip 54 is covered by a movable diaphragm 60 and a backplate 62 which together form a capacitor whose capacitance varies as the diaphragm is moved in response to incident sound” See also ¶0021 of instant application’s pgpub “a MEMS receiver cell denotes a Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) comprising one or at least one electroacoustic transducer configured to convert electric signals to acoustic signals or vice versa”), wherein the printed circuit board is folded to form a hollow body and inserted in the case with the MEMS receiver cells facing inward and/or outward (Mullenborn figures 2e, flexprint 242a is folded to form a space between folds), at least one cap closing the open end of the case (Mullenborn figure 2c, ¶0044 “The faceplate 204 has an opening 210 shaped to receive the access door 206”), wherein one of the caps comprises a sound port for guiding sound produced by the MEMS receiver cells out of the receiver (Mullenborn figure 2e, bottom of housing 232a where the hole receives receiver 240a), however does not explicitly teach a case having a tubular shape, wherein one of the caps comprises a sound port for guiding sound produced by the receiver.
Iseberg teaches the case having a tubular shape with at least one open end (Iseberg figure 2, Col 3 lines 29-34, “cylindrical form”), at least one cap closing the open end of the case (Iseberg figure 2, Col 3 lines 25-28, “Member 28 is secured in an opening of an end cap 29 which is secured to one end of the housing member 20 to close one end of the chamber portion 19”), wherein one of the caps comprises a sound port for guiding sound produced by the receiver (Iseberg figure 2, receiver 18 and tubular portion 35, end section 42, coupling device 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Iseberg to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn to achieve the predictable result of a more comfortable fit in the ear when wearing the hearing device.
Regarding claim 4, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg teaches wherein the case and/or the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board have/has a polygonal, e.g. triangular, quadrangular, in particular rectangular or square, pentagonal, or hexagonal cross section, or a circular (Iseberg figure 2, Col 3 lines 29-34, “cylindrical form”) or oval cross section.
Regarding claim 11, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg teaches wherein the printed circuit board is folded to form a hollow body having a concave shape (Mullenborn figures 2e, flexprint 242a is folded to form a space between folds).
Regarding claim 13, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg teaches wherein a cap having a cable for electrically connecting the printed circuit board is arranged at the end of the case opposite the cap with the sound port (Iseberg figure 2, end cap 29 with wires 25, 26).
Regarding claim 15, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg teaches A method of producing a receiver for a hearing instrument, comprising: providing a case having a tubular shape with at least one open end (Mullenborn figure 2e, housing 232a with opening accommodating speaker 240a and figure 2c, opening 256), providing a flexible or partially flexible printed circuit board and populating it with a plurality of MEMS receiver cells (Mullenborn figure 1c and ¶0036, “four silicon-based transducer assemblies 80a, 80b, 80c, 80d arrayed (i.e., arranged in predetermined manner) on a printed circuit board 82. Alternately, they may be arrayed on a flex-print,” ¶0034, “The transducer assembly 52 generally includes an intermediate chip 57 and a transducer chip 54 ... An opening in the transducer chip 54 is covered by a movable diaphragm 60 and a backplate 62 which together form a capacitor whose capacitance varies as the diaphragm is moved in response to incident sound” See also ¶0021 of instant application’s pgpub “a MEMS receiver cell denotes a Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) comprising one or at least one electroacoustic transducer configured to convert electric signals to acoustic signals or vice versa”), folding the printed circuit board to form a hollow body and inserted it into the case with the MEMS receiver cells facing inward and/or outward (Mullenborn figures 2e, flexprint 242a is folded to form a space between folds), closing the at least one open end of the case with at least one cap (Mullenborn figure 2c, ¶0044 “The faceplate 204 has an opening 210 shaped to receive the access door 206”), wherein one of the caps comprises a sound port for guiding sound produced by the MEMS receiver cells out of the receiver (Mullenborn figure 2e, bottom of housing 232a where the hole receives receiver 240a), however does not explicitly teach a case having a tubular shape with at least one open end, wherein one of the caps comprises a sound port for guiding sound produced by the receiver.
Iseberg teaches the case having a tubular shape with at least one open end (Iseberg figure 2, Col 3 lines 29-34, “cylindrical form”), at least one cap closing the open end of the case (Iseberg figure 2, Col 3 lines 25-28, “Member 28 is secured in an opening of an end cap 29 which is secured to one end of the housing member 20 to close one end of the chamber portion 19”), wherein one of the caps comprises a sound port for guiding sound produced by the receiver (Iseberg figure 2, receiver 18 and tubular portion 35, end section 42, coupling device 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Iseberg to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn to achieve the predictable result of a more comfortable fit in the ear when wearing the hearing device.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenborn (US 2007/0071260) in view of Iseberg (US 5887070) in further view of Yang (CN 214481261).
Regarding claim 2, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg teaches a circuit board with rigid zones are populated with the plurality of MEMS receiver cells (Mullenborn figure 1c and ¶0036, “four silicon-based transducer assemblies 80a, 80b, 80c, 80d arrayed (i.e., arranged in predetermined manner) on a printed circuit board 82. Alternately, they may be arrayed on a flex-print”), however does not explicitly teach wherein the partially flexible printed circuit board comprises at least two generally rigid zones with a respective flexible fold serving as a hinge between pairs of adjacent rigid zones in each case, wherein the rigid zones comprise a more rigid material than the flexible folds or are made of the same material but are more rigid than the flexible folds due to the MEMS receiver cells arranged thereon.
Yang teaches wherein the partially flexible printed circuit board comprises at least two generally rigid zones (Yang ¶0047, “rigid joint 222 includes multiple functional areas”) with a respective flexible fold serving as a hinge (Yang figure 3 and ¶0047, “the folding of the flexible bending portions 221 forms the mounting area for the corresponding electronic components”) between pairs of adjacent rigid zones in each case, wherein the rigid zones comprise a more rigid material than the flexible folds (Yang ¶0033, “The flexible circuit board 21 is a circuit board with at least a portion having highly flexible printing. The rigid-flex circuit board 22 is a printed circuit board with at least some areas being flexible.” And ¶0036, “at least one of the flexible circuit board 21 and/or the rigid-flex circuit board 22 has at least partially foldable flexibility, thereby enabling the two to be folded and connected or one of them to be folded and connected to the rack, in order to reduce the installation space of the circuit board assembly 20.” See also ¶0038, “the structure of the flexible circuit board 21 can be set according to the actual installation requirements of the hearing aid 100, and no specific limitation is made here) or are made of the same material but are more rigid than the flexible folds due to the MEMS receiver cells arranged thereon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Yang to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn in view of Iseberg to achieve the predictable result of reducing installation space of the circuit board it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang teaches wherein at least one control chip configured to control the MEMS receiver cells is arranged on at least one of the rigid zones (Yang ¶0047, “The main chip mounting area 2225 is equipped with the main chip and the antenna, so that the signal in the hearing aid 100 can be transmitted to the main chip through the antenna, and the various functions of the hearing aid 100 can be realized under the control of the main chip”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenborn (US 2007/0071260) in view of Iseberg (US 5887070) in further view of Zhang (US 2022/0303696).
Regarding claim 3, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board has an at least basically tubular shape.
Zhang teaches wherein the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board has an at least basically tubular shape (Zhang figures 10-11 and ¶0064, “the main body of the flexible circuit board 31 is bent into an annular portion 310 (referring to subsequent FIGS. 10 and 11), as shown in FIGS. 4, 5 and 12, specifically the annular portion 310 of the flexible circuit board 31 surrounds the peripheral side of the battery 32”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Zhang to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn in view of Iseberg to achieve the predictable result of reducing the space required to install the circuit board.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenborn (US 2007/0071260) in view of Iseberg (US 5887070) in further view of Yang (CN 214481261) in further view of Dzarnoski (US 2018/0027344).
Regarding claim 5, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang teaches wherein the printed circuit board comprises two, three, four, five, six or more at least essentially rectangular rigid zones (Yang ¶0047, “rigid joint 222 includes multiple functional areas”) populated with one or more MEMS receiver cells each(Yang ¶0047, microphone mounting part 211, which are transducer mountable parts), however does not explicitly teach arranged in parallel to each other with a respective fold separating each pair of adjacent rigid zones.
Dzarnoski teaches components arranged in parallel to each other with a respective fold separating each pair of adjacent rigid zones (Dzarnoski figure 3A, folding unit 211 and device 226 is parallel to device 225).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Dzarnoski to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Dzarnoski to achieve the predictable result of reducing installation space of the circuit board it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang in further view of Dzarnoski teaches wherein two rigid zones at opposite ends of the printed circuit board comprise mutually complementary engagement structures (Yang ¶0033, “The flexible circuit board 21 is a circuit board with at least a portion having highly flexible printing. The rigid-flex circuit board 22 is a printed circuit board with at least some areas being flexible.” And ¶0036, “at least one of the flexible circuit board 21 and/or the rigid-flex circuit board 22 has at least partially foldable flexibility, thereby enabling the two to be folded and connected or one of them to be folded and connected to the rack, in order to reduce the installation space of the circuit board assembly 20.” See also ¶0038, “the structure of the flexible circuit board 21 can be set according to the actual installation requirements of the hearing aid 100, and no specific limitation is made here) configured to engage each other when the printed circuit board is folded to form the hollow body (Dzarnoski figure 3A, folding unit 211 and device 226 is parallel to device 225).
Regarding claim 8, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang in further view of Dzarnoski teaches wherein at least one end of some or all parallel rigid zones (Dzarnoski figure 3A, folding unit 211 and device 226 is parallel to device 225) have a lug configured to engage in a slot in the cap (Mullenborn figure 2f, flexprint 242b traces around the hinged door pin of the battery door 236b).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the printed circuit board has two parallel rigid zones separated by a fold (Yang figure 3 and ¶0047, “the folding of the flexible bending portions 221 forms the mounting area for the corresponding electronic components”), wherein one of the rigid zones is folded onto the other rigid zone (Dzarnoski figure 3A, folding unit 211 and device 226 is parallel to device 225).
Regarding claim 10, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang in further view of Dzarnoski teaches wherein the printed circuit board has four parallel rigid zones including two outer ones and two inner ones (Dzarnoski figure 3A, folding unit 211 and device 226 is parallel to device 225, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the number of rigid zone to accommodate more circuitry, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), wherein adjacent rigid zones are separated by a respective fold (Yang figure 3 and ¶0047, “the folding of the flexible bending portions 221 forms the mounting area for the corresponding electronic components”), wherein each outer rigid zone is folded onto the respectively adjacent inner rigid zone to form a pair, wherein the pairs are folded about a middle one of the folds one upon the other (Dzarnoski figure 3A, folding unit 211 and device 226 is parallel to device 225 It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the number folds to accommodate more circuitry, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenborn (US 2007/0071260) in view of Iseberg (US 5887070) in further view of Yang (CN 214481261) in further view of Leong (US 2004/0189218).
Regarding claim 6, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang teaches using another rigid zone of the printed circuit board (Yang ¶0047, “rigid joint 222 includes multiple functional areas”), however does not explicitly teach wherein one of the ends of the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board is closed.
Leong teaches wherein one of the ends of the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board is closed (Leong figure 2 and ¶0045, “the shape of the tubular housing holding the individual flexible circuit board can be made in a similar shape to match the shape of the formed flexible circuit board” and ¶0218 “LED array circuit board 34 has opposed circuit board circular ends 36A and 36B that are slightly inwardly positioned from tubular wall ends 30A and 30B”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Leong to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn in view of Iseberg in further view of Yang to achieve the predictable result of increased circuit board mounting surfaces.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullenborn (US 2007/0071260) in view of Iseberg (US 5887070) in further view of Chew (US 2018/0109881).
Regarding claim 14, Mullenborn in view of Iseberg does not explicitly teach wherein the case comprises a plurality of spacers or embossings facing inwards for locally supporting an outer surface of the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board.
Chew teaches wherein the case comprises a plurality of spacers or embossings facing inwards for locally supporting an outer surface of the hollow body formed from the printed circuit board (Chew figure 2, ¶0047 “two approximately right-angled reinforcing plate 56”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Chew to improve the known receiver of Mullenborn in view of Iseberg to achieve the predictable result of a more stabilized printed board (Chew figure 2, ¶0047 “The printed circuit board section 34 is stabilized in sections by the reinforcement plates 56”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights