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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 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.
Specifically, there is no antecedent basis for, “the cover”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 – 3, 11 (U.S. 2008/013639) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klemenz (U.S. 2008/013639) in view of Zhang (U.S. 2022/0303697) and further in view of Härtl (U.S. 4639556).
Klemenz discloses rechargeable hearing aid/contact charging/pins/openings
Claim 1 first requires:
“A hearing aid comprising a rechargeable battery and a charging interface, the charging interface being configured to mechanically interface with a charger device for establishing contact charging.”
Klemenz discloses its battery as including “any rechargeable battery” capable of providing electrical energy to the hearing aid. Klemenz further discloses that the hearing-aid contact element may be a contact pin suitable for receiving charging current and may be preloaded against the external charger contact. See ¶[0015].
Klemenz ¶[0017] discloses a housing opening for the contact element.
More specifically, Klemenz ¶[0029] teaches an ITE hearing aid having:
• battery 31;
• two openings/guides 33, 33′ in the hearing-aid housing;
• respective contact elements 37, 37′; and
• corresponding charger contacts 51, 51′.
During charging, the hearing aid is brought into physical contact with the charger and contacts 51, 51′ electrically contact hearing-aid contact elements 37, 37′. ¶[0030].
Klemenz's Fig. 3 embodiment is even closer to the claim. Paragraph [0033] expressly calls elements 37, 37′ “contact pins” and teaches that they are pushed through guides 33, 33′ until they project out of the hearing-aid housing and engage corresponding charger sockets.
Accordingly, Klemenz teaches:
• rechargeable battery;
• hearing-aid charging interface;
• mechanical/direct contact charging;
• a plurality of contact pins;
• respective housing openings; and
• the pins extending through the openings for charging.
Klemenz does not expressly disclose that the charging interface is:
“arranged on a substrate having a flexible part”
or the specific:
“70 to 90 degree”
relationship between the charging-interface-carrying substrate part and a neighboring part of the same substrate.
Zhang — charging/electrical contacts actually connected to flexible-board pads
Zhang is not merely generic flexible-circuit art. It expressly concerns a hearing-aid electrical-contact structure.
Zhang teaches a housing containing a flexible circuit board and at least two side holes, with a conductive contact sheet in each hole electrically connected to a pad of the flexible circuit board. ¶¶[0007], [0012].
Zhang further states that the housing-side contacts correspond with a charging device, and its four-contact embodiment includes circuit positive and negative contacts.
Zhang therefore supplies the missing teaching of hearing-aid external electrical/charging contacts being carried electrically by pads of a flexible circuit substrate.
It would have been obvious to electrically connect and mount the external charging-contact structure of Klemenz to the flexible circuit board/pad arrangement of Zhang because Zhang expressly teaches this arrangement in a compact hearing aid and explains that it provides a hearing-aid electrical-contact structure while maintaining a small, ergonomic device.
This modification merely places Klemenz's known external charging contacts on Zhang's known hearing-aid flexible electrical substrate so that the contacts can be interconnected with the battery and hearing-aid circuitry while preserving compact packaging.
Härtl expressly teaches a hearing aid containing one flexible foil printed circuit 9 having:
• component zone 11;
• component-free bending zone 12;
• support/component zone 13; and
• further component zone 15.
Härtl's summary expressly states that its printed circuit is partitioned into a support zone, component zone and bending zone, and that the circuit is bent at the bending zone so that the component-bearing portion extends into the hearing-aid interior.
Most significantly, Härtl expressly states that component zone 15:
“extends for instance at right angles” while remaining part of the same flexible foil circuit 9.
A right angle is 90 degrees, squarely within the claimed range of 70 to 90 degrees.
Härtl thus supplies:
a substrate having a flexible part;
a first substrate part and neighboring substrate part formed as portions of a single substrate; and
an angular orientation within the claimed range.
Härtl further expressly explains the reason for its arrangement: bending the common circuit allows the components to be placed where sufficient space exists, uses the hearing-aid housing more efficiently, and permits further miniaturization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to employ Härtl's bent single-flex-substrate arrangement for the charging-contact-bearing flexible circuit of the Klemenz/Zhang combination to position the charging contacts adjacent the required hearing-aid housing openings while optimally using the extremely limited internal hearing-aid volume, precisely the benefit Härtl identifies.
With respect to claim 2,
Claim 2 adds:
“programming pads configured to act as a programming interface for the hearing aid, the housing comprising an opening at the programming pads.”
Zhang expressly teaches four conductive contact sheets corresponding to:
• positive electrode;
• negative electrode;
• shutdown-trigger electrode; and
• program burning interface.
See ¶[0013].
The contact sheet is located in a housing side hole and is electrically connected to a pad of the flexible circuit board.
Zhang later expressly confirms that the four contact sheets respectively perform these functions, including the program burning interface, and explains that the programming interface allows new programs to be loaded into the hearing aid. ¶¶[0079]–[0081].
Thus Zhang maps:
• programming contact/pad;
• programming function;
• flexible circuit board; and
• corresponding housing opening.
With respect to claim 3,
Claim 3 requires:
“the charging interface and the programming pads are arranged on the same substrate.”
Zhang expressly places the circuit positive/negative contacts and program-burning-interface contact in the same contact architecture, with the conductive contact sheets connected to pads of flexible circuit board 31.
Zhang's claims likewise recite a flexible circuit board having multiple pads and four conductive contact sheets respectively serving positive, negative, shutdown, and programming functions.
Accordingly, Zhang provides the direct same-flexible-substrate teaching.
Claim 11 alternatively recites an air-conduction hearing aid, bone-conduction hearing aid, or combination thereof.
Härtl expressly discloses microphone 14 and loudspeaker/receiver 16 coupled through respective sound openings, i.e. a conventional air-conduction hearing-aid arrangement. Because the alternatives are disjunctive, disclosure of an air-conduction hearing aid satisfies the limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Klemenz in view of Zhang and Härtl, and further in view of Bogeskov-Jensen (U.S. 6,700,983).
Claim 4 requires:
“a telecoil is mounted at the neighboring substrate part.”
Bogeskov-Jensen teaches a hearing-aid circuitry board 18 carrying:
• amplifier 19;
• volume control 20;
• telecoil; (not visible, Col. 2 – Col. 3, lines 54 - 3)
• programming terminals 21; and
• switch 22.
Bogeskov-Jensen further secures board 18 in housing slots 33, 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the conventional telecoil of Bogeskov-Jensen on the neighboring component-bearing portion of the common flexible substrate of the modified Klemenz/Zhang/Härtl hearing aid because Bogeskov-Jensen expressly locates the telecoil with the hearing-aid circuitry on a common board, and Härtl provides neighboring component-bearing zones specifically for efficient component placement.
Claim 5 is rejected under §103 over Klemenz in view of Zhang, Härtl and Bogeskov-Jensen, further in view of Marshall (2003/0031339) and Burwinkel (20250126419)
Claim 5 requires first and second parts extending toward the telecoil to form a screen for electromagnetic fields having the claimed relationship to the telecoil pickup axis.
Marshall — physical screen structure
Marshall expressly discloses a hearing-instrument telecoil joined to a substrate. ¶¶[0057]–[0059].
Its substrate can be a flexible polyimide board, and conductive ground plane 28 expressly assists in electromagnetic shielding of telecoil 12. ¶[0059].
Marshall ¶[0069] provides a particularly close physical screen:
• first metal portion 50;
• middle metal portion 52;
• third metal portion 54;
physically and electrically connected around telecoil 12. First and third portions 50 and 54 are highly permeable magnetic material; the cover is connected to the substrate ground plane and provides a continuous conductor path around the telecoil in all three orthogonal planes.
Marshall's end-mounted embodiment similarly employs first and third magnetic portions 140 and 144 together with central portion 142, connected to the substrate ground plane and surrounding the telecoil in three orthogonal planes. ¶¶[0085]–[0086].
Marshall therefore supplies the claimed multi-part screening structure.
Burwinkel teaches that telecoils are sensitive to magnetic fields generated by hearing-aid components and that placement and orientation of the telecoil relative to the magnetic field are important. Burwinkel ¶¶[0005]–[0007].
Paragraph [0020] expressly discloses directional sensitivity of the telecoil and orientation with respect to the desired magnetic field.
Paragraph [0037] expressly recognizes electromagnetic shielding as a known technique for controlling unwanted magnetic fields from hearing-device components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated Marshall's multi-part telecoil screen in accordance with the known directional sensitivity described by Burwinkel into the Klemenz/Zhang/Härtl /Bogeskov-Jensen system and method, so as to reduce magnetic interference arriving in undesired orientations while maintaining sensitivity along the desired telecoil pickup direction.
Marshall supplies the first and second shielding portions and physical screen; Burwinkel supplies the directional magnetic-field/telecoil-orientation rationale.
Claims 6 – 7 are rejected under §103 over Klemenz, Zhang and Härtl as applied to claim 1, further in view of Helgeson (U.S. 2016/0337767) and von Mansberg (U.S. 2022/0360915).
Claim 6 requires a rubber spacer/part positioned between the charging-interface-carrying substrate and the housing/battery compartment/battery.
Helgeson teaches a hearing-aid flexible/3D substrate that wraps around a battery compartment, together with gaskets and rubber or polymer seals associated with that substrate/battery-compartment structure. ¶[0012].
Von Mansberg discloses rubber sealing rings 62 assigned to the electrical contacts, with the rings resting on first printed circuit board 60 and stabilized thereby. It further expressly contemplates that this printed circuit can be part of the hearing aid and that the depicted contacts form the hearing-aid counter contacts. ¶[0082].
It would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Helgeson and von Mansberg of a compliant rubber spacer/sealing member between the charging-interface substrate and adjacent hearing-aid structure into the Klemenz/Zhang/Härtl system and method in order to stabilize the contact/substrate assembly, accommodate manufacturing tolerances, and inhibit entry of contaminants—functions expressly recognized by Helgeson and von Mansberg.
.
Claim 7 adds:
“the rubber part is configured to receive or abut the substrate part carrying the charging interface.”
Von Mansberg expressly states that the rubber seal rings rest on the printed circuit board and are stabilized there, thereby directly providing the claimed abut alternative.
Because claim 7 is written as “receive or abut,” establishing abutment is
Claim 8 is rejected under §103 over Klemenz, Zhang, Härtl, Helgeson and von Mansberg as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Bogeskov-Jensen.
Claim 8 requires the substrate carrying the charging interface to be:
“held in the intended place by a wall part of the hearing aid housing.”
Bogeskov-Jensen expressly provides housing-defined holding slots 33, 34 which receive circuitry board 18 and fix it against longitudinal and transverse translation.
It would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Bogeskov-Jensen (secure the charging-interface-carrying substrate portion using known housing-wall slots or equivalent integral housing retention structures) into the Klemenz/Hartl/Helgeson/Mansberg system and method because Bogeskov-Jensen expressly employs that arrangement to fix a hearing-aid circuit board in its intended position and simplify assembly.
Claim 9 is rejected under §103 over the combination of Klemenz/Zhang/Hartl as applied to claim 2, further in view of Bogeskov-Jensen and Crook (U.S.2007/0081684).
Claim 9 requires:
“a removable cover arranged at the opening at the programming pads.”
Bogeskov-Jensen teaches apertures 49 at programming terminals 21, providing external access to the programming contacts.
Crook teaches a hearing-aid access door/cover and expressly explains that the battery door is a wear part that may be exchanged/replaced. The door is snap-connected to a hinge bearing, further demonstrating its removability/replacement.
It would have been obvious to place a removable protective hearing-aid cover of the type taught by Crook over the externally accessible programming opening of Klemenz/Zhang/Hartl/Bogeskov-Jensen to protect the programming contacts against cerumen, dirt, moisture and accidental contact while retaining ready service access.
Klemenz itself expressly recognizes the desirability of covering hearing-aid contact openings to prevent cerumen or dirt intrusion.
With respect to claim 10, note paragraphs 0012 and claim 5 of Crook.
Claims 12 – 14 are rejected under §103 over Klemenz, Zhang and Härtl as applied to claim 1, further in view of von Mansberg and Aase (U.S. 12,245,001).
Claim 12 requires two metal plates associated with magnetic retention during charging.
Von Mansberg expressly teaches two counter contacts 52 formed from ferromagnetic metal, positioned in the hearing-aid housing and electrically connected to the rechargeable battery through printed circuit board 54. ¶[0076].
As the hearing aid approaches the charger, the magnetic interaction with the ferromagnetic counter contacts increases, drawing the charging contacts into engagement. ¶[0077].
Aase independently discloses the precise general retention concept of a charger magnet cooperating with a ferromagnetic target plate in a hearing-assistance device to provide magnetic retention force while charging.(See the Abstract)
Klemenz also expressly discloses that magnetic force holds the hearing aid against the charging contacts.
It would have been obvious to provide two spaced ferromagnetic plate/member structures for engagement by the charger magnetic system into the Klemenz/Zhang/Hartl system and method to obtain stable, balanced retention of the hearing aid at two locations during charging, because both von Mansberg and the Aase disclose using ferromagnetic hearing-device members and charger magnetism for alignment/retention.
Claim 13 requires the two metal plates to be arranged parallel to one another.
Von Mansberg expressly teaches two ferromagnetic counter contacts having their axes parallel to the charging/receptacle longitudinal direction, i.e. similarly oriented corresponding members. (See paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0022, 0071 - 0072 and 0076)
Using two plate-form ferromagnetic members in corresponding parallel orientation would have been the predictable geometry for balanced simultaneous magnetic retention against a charger having corresponding magnetic structures.
Claim 14 requires the two metal plates to be located at sides not including the charging interface.
Aase establishes that the magnetic-retention target plate is a retention component distinct from the electrical/wireless charging transfer structure, rather than requiring the magnetic retention member itself to constitute the charging interface.
It would have been obvious to position duplicated retention plates at housing sides away from the electrical contact interface where necessary to avoid obstruction of that interface and to distribute holding force about the hearing aid. This produces the predictable result of leaving the electrical charging contacts accessible while providing independent magnetic retention.
Claim 15 is rejected under §103 over Klemenz in view of Zhang and Härtl and further in view of von Mansberg.
The hearing-aid-side limitations of claim 15 are met for the reasons given with respect to claim 1:
• Klemenz → rechargeable hearing aid, contact charging, plural pins and housing openings;
• Zhang → external electrical contacts connected to pads of a flexible hearing-aid circuit;
• Härtl → common flexible substrate with bending portion and right-angle/90° relationship.
Claim 15 additionally requires:
“the hearing aid charger comprising a hearing aid receptacle configured to receive at least a part of the hearing aid to be charged.”
Klemenz expressly discloses a holder for the hearing aid, shaped to provide a defined charging position and adaptable to the shape of the hearing aid. ¶¶[0011]–[0013].
Von Mansberg expressly discloses a receptacle 20 adapted to the shape of hearing aid 4, in which at least part of the hearing aid is positioned and securely held.
It would have been obvious to employ von Mansberg's shaped hearing-aid receptacle in the Klemenz/Zhang/Hartl charging device to establish repeatable alignment between the charging pins and hearing-aid contacts, protect the charging structures and securely retain the hearing aid during charging.
Claim 16 and 17 are rejected under §103 over Klemenz, Zhang, Härtl and von Mansberg as applied to claim 15, further in view of Ochsenbein (U.S. 2007/0183612).
Claim 16 requires a charger interface engaging the hearing-aid charging interface, with:
“springs acting as electrical conductors during charging.”
Von Mansberg expressly describes direct hearing-aid charging using a Pogo-pin charger contact. The counter-contact is placed against the contact and electrical charging energy is transferred. ¶[0007].
Paragraph [0008] expressly states:
“The Pogo pins typically have a contact region which is spring-loaded.”
and explains that the spring is compressed when the hearing-aid counter contact engages it, maintaining physical contact.
Ochsenbein provides additional hearing-device-specific support: its charger claims expressly recite charging pins 13, 13′ that are spring-mounted.
It would have been obvious to use the known spring-loaded conductive charging-pin arrangement of Ochsenbein in the charger of claim Klemenz/Zhang/Hartl/von Mansberg because the spring action maintains reliable electrical engagement despite normal dimensional and positioning tolerances. Von Mansberg expressly identifies tolerance compensation as the advantage of the Pogo-pin construction.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited “springs acting as electrical conductors” encompasses the spring-loaded conductive contact structure disclosed by these references.
Claim 17 requires:
“a first and a second magnet configured to interact with a first and second metal plate of the hearing aid to be charged.”
Von Mansberg provides two ferromagnetic counter contacts 52 in the hearing aid and expressly relies on magnetic interaction between the charger magnet and those ferromagnetic members to move the charging contact system into engagement.
Von Mansberg further states that the charging device may contain two charging units, each assigned to a respective contact. ¶[0020].
Aase establishes that a charger magnet interacting with a ferromagnetic hearing-device target plate is a known magnetic-retention arrangement (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571 -272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be directed to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484.
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 https://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).
22Aug2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights