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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 –20 of US Patent No. 12,231,856. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 –20 of US Patent No. 12,231,856 disclose every limitation of claims 1-11 in the instant application.
For Example see below:
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,231,856
1. A hearing instrument comprising: a component support structure; one or more operative components attached to or contained within the component support structure; and a shell attached to the component support structure, wherein the shell is formed by a process of: placing the component support structure at least partially in a bath of a resin liquid, wherein the one or more operative components of the hearing instrument are attached to or contained within the component support structure prior to the component support structure being at least partially placed in the bath of the resin liquid; and while the component support structure is at least partially in the bath, performing volumetric 3-dimensional (3D) printing to form the shell of the hearing instrument.
1. A method for manufacturing a hearing instrument, the method comprising: placing a component support structure at least partially in a bath of a resin liquid, wherein the component support structure is user-specific, wherein one or more operative components of the hearing instrument are attached to or contained within the component support structure prior to the component support structure being at least partially placed in the bath of the resin liquid; and while the component support structure is at least partially in the bath, performing volumetric 3-dimensional (3D) printing to form a shell of the hearing instrument attached to the component support structure.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein: the component support structure comprises a faceplate that contains one or more of the operative components.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARNWORTH et al. (6,549,821-of record) herein Farnwoth and in further view of STEVENS et al. (2005/0074543) herein Stevens and CALDOROLA et al. (US 2017/0019740) herein Caldorola.
Regarding claim 1, Farnworth discloses a stereolithographic method for packaging electronic components and resulting structures and discloses in Fig.3, submerging the electronic component partially below the surface level 18 of liquid material 16 to a depth the same as, or greater than, the thickness of a first layer of material 16 to be at least partially cured to a semi-solid state to form the lowest layer 60 of a package sidewall 102 about each of dice 100, and then raised toa depth equal to the layer thickness if lowered to a greater depth than a layer thickness, the surface of liquid material 16 being allowed to settle (Farnworth: C11:L7-15). Essentially, stereolithography, as conventionally practiced, involves utilizing a computer to generate a three-dimensional mathematical simulation or model of an object to be fabricated, such generation usually effected with 3-D computer-aided design software (Farnworth: C1:L21-35).
Farnworth is silent to the electronic component to be that of a hearing aid. However, Stevens discloses hearing aid ear shells are commonly formed via stereolithographic process (Stevens: [0001]-[0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the hearing instrument of Stevens with the stereolithographic method for electronic components taught by Farnworth.
Farnworth and Stevens are silent a component support structure; one or more operative components attached to or contained within the component support structure; and a shell attached to the component support structure. However, Caldarola discloses a typical hearing aid ear shell that has a component support structure; one or more operative components attached to or contained within the component support structure; and a shell attached to the component support structure (Caldarola: faceplate 5 is a component support structure with operative components attached and shell 1 is attached to faceplate 5, Fig. 1, [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hearing aid of Farnworth and Stevens to be a typical CTC type hearing aid device as taught by Caldarola.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Farnworth, Stevens and Caldarola, Caldarola teaches wherein the component support structure comprises a faceplate that contains one or more of the operative components (faceplate 5 comprising one or more of the operative components, Caldorola: Fig. 1, [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, in the combination of Farnworth, Stevens and Caldarola, Caldarola teaches wherein: the one or more operative components include a speaker, and an interior surface of the shell that defines an interior void containing the speaker and that separates any part of the speaker from direct contact with the shell (shell 1 contains an interior surface the defines an interior void/cavity containing speaker 2, 81, separating speaker 2, 81 from direct contact with the shell, Caldarola: Figs. 1, 8A-8C).
Regarding claim 8, in the combination of Farnworth, Stevens and Caldarola, Caldarola teaches wherein the component support structure comprises a set of rigid wires that hold the operative components in position relative to one another (rigid wiring and mounting hold components in position relative to one another, Caldarola: Fig. 1, 8A-8C, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, in the combination of Farnworth, Stevens and Caldarola, Caldarola teaches wherein one or more of the wires carry at least one of power or communication between two or more of the operative components (wires seen in Caldarola, Fig. 1, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, in the combination of Farnworth, Stevens and Caldarola, Caldarola teaches wherein the one or more operative components include a plurality of operative components, and an electrical trace formed on the component support structure provides at least one of power or communication between two or more of the operative components of the hearing instrument (plurality of operative components including microphone, battery, receiver, circuitry, and its explicitly implied that the circuitry has electrical traces formed to transfer power from the battery to other electronic components, Caldarola, Fig. 1, [0035], [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, in the combination of Farnworth, Stevens and Caldarola, Caldarola teaches wherein the one or more operative components include at least one of: a battery, a receiver, a microphone, or circuitry (battery, receiver, microphone and circuitry included, Caldarola: Fig. 1, [0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7 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 and after overcoming the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7503. 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.
/SEAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights