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 .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on August 28, 2026. The Remarks of August 28, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Claims are considered. The respective amendments to the claims address the objections raised. The original objections to the claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 14, 18, and 20 are considered. The respective amendments to claims 14 and 18 address the 112 rejection issues and claim 20 is cancelled. There are no further 112 rejections of the claims.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the Claims are considered. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 103 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the original 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendment to claim 1 necessitates new grounds of rejection based on a new Prior Art reference. In light of this, the applicant’s arguments regarding the cited Prior Art references not teaching “only two helical intertwined conductor strands” (claim 1) and “around said curved carrier said at least one conductor strand is helically wound” (claim 10) are moot.
Regarding amended claim 13, on page 7 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues: “More particularly, Applicants do not see where Kvist shows that the antenna is detachable, as required by Applicants' claim 13. Further, the Kvist reference clearly does not disclose that the antenna element can be locked to the coupling point in a formfitting manner, as required by Applicants' currently amended claim 13.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the limitation of the antenna being detachable, Kvist (col. 9, lines 58-65) discloses: “In FIG. 2d, a pull-out handle 216 is shown. The antenna 210 extends within the pull-out handle 216. In some examples, the pull-out handle 216 is a hollow tube, and e.g. made of nylon, and the antenna extends within the tube. However, it is envisaged that the pull-out handle may be made in any other way, and … the antenna may be embedded within the material of the pull-out handle, etc.” Therefore, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art that the antenna in Kvist is detachably attached to the housing as opposed to being fixed in a certain position or location. Regarding the limitation of the antenna element being locked to said coupling point in a formfitting manner, Kvist (col. 9, lines 56-58) discloses: “The antenna … interconnects with the faceplate at the second position 209.” One skilled in the art would understand that an antenna, which is a part of a pull-out handle, interconnecting with the faceplate is equivalent to the antenna element being locked to a coupling point in a formfitting manner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10-12, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 (line 2): “said two intertwined helical conductor strands” should be amended to “said two helical intertwined conductor strands”;
Claims 10-12 and 21: “said at least one conductor strand” should be amended to “said at least one helical conductor strand”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvist et al. (US 11496843 B2, hereinafter Kvist) in view of Bodvarsson (US 10264369 B2) and Hasani (US 12439214 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kvist (Figs. 1, 2d) discloses an in-the-ear hearing aid (100), comprising:
a transmitting and receiving unit (108 – Fig. 1);
a housing (200 – Fig. 2d) having said transmitting and receiving unit disposed therein; and
an arc-shaped antenna element (210 – Fig. 2d) emerging from said housing and forming at least part of a handle element (216 – Fig. 2d), said arc-shaped antenna element is used for transmitting or receiving a signal and is connected to said transmitting and receiving unit (see col. 8, lines 54-58) disposed in said housing.
Kvist does not disclose the limitations wherein with an aid of said handle element the hearing aid is removable from an ear by a user, said arc-shaped antenna element having at least one helical conductor strand, said at least one helical conductor strand is formed arc-shaped, wherein said at least one helical conductor strand is one of only two helical intertwined conductor strands, said only two helical intertwined conductor strands forming a double helix.
Bodvarsson (Fig. 7; col. 14, lines 12-33) teaches arc-shaped antenna element (40) forming at least part of a handle element (26), with an aid of said handle element the hearing aid is removable from an ear by a user (see col. 9, lines 48-49), said arc-shaped antenna element having at least one helical conductor strand (43), said at least one helical conductor strand is formed arc-shaped.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that with an aid of said handle element the hearing aid is removable from an ear by a user and said arc-shaped antenna element has at least one helical conductor strand, said at least one helical conductor strand is formed arc-shaped as taught by Bodvarsson. This modification would provide, firstly, a convenient way for attaching the hearing aid to the user’s ear (see Bodvarsson, col. 9, lines 48-49) and, secondly, an antenna element that takes less space (see Bodvarsson, col. 6, lines 35-38).
The so modified Kvist does not teach the limitation wherein said at least one helical conductor strand is one of only two helical intertwined conductor strands, said only two helical intertwined conductor strands forming a double helix.
Hasani (Figs. 1, 3-4) teaches an in-the-ear hearing aid (2 – Fig. 1) comprising an antenna element (22 – Fig. 4), wherein the antenna element comprises at least one helical conductor strand (24a – Fig. 4), wherein the at least one helical conductor strand is one of only two helical intertwined conductor strands (24a, 24b – Fig. 4), said only two helical intertwined conductor strands forming a double helix (as shown in Fig. 4, the two helical intertwined conductor strands, 24a and 24b, form a double helix).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist by adding a second helical conductor strand as taught by Hasani, so that said at least one helical conductor strand is one of only two helical intertwined conductor strands, said only two helical intertwined conductor strands forming a double helix. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein one of said two intertwined helical conductor strands is grounded.
Hasani (Fig. 4) teaches one (24a) of said two intertwined helical conductor strands (24a, 24b) is grounded (as shown in Fig. 4, the helical conductor strand 24a is connected to the antenna ground 18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that one of said two intertwined helical conductor strands is grounded as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said two helical intertwined conductor strands are directly connected to one another at an end and short-circuited.
Hasani (Figs. 3-4) teaches said two helical intertwined conductor strands (24a, 24b) are directly connected to one another at an end (as shown in Fig. 3, the two helical intertwined conductor strands, 24a and 24b, are directly connected to one another at an end 28) and short-circuited (as shown in Fig. 4, the two helical intertwined conductor strands, 24a and 24b, are connected to the antenna ground 18 – i.e. they are short-circuited).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said two helical intertwined conductor strands are directly connected to one another at an end and short-circuited as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein an impedance of said arc-shaped antenna element is set by said two helical intertwined conductor strands.
Hasani (col. 3, lines 54-67 and col. 4, lines 1-4) teaches an impedance of the antenna element is set by two helical intertwined conductor strands (antenna arms – the antenna arms may be two; the antenna arms in the paragraph in question refer to, among other embodiments, the antenna arms of the antenna element shown in Figs. 3-4 wherein the antenna arms are two helical intertwined conductor strands).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that an impedance of said arc-shaped antenna element is set by said two helical intertwined conductor strands as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one helical conductor strand extends from a first end at a beginning of said arc-shaped antenna element to a second end at an end of said arc-shaped antenna element.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bodvarsson (Fig. 7; col. 14, lines 12-33) teaches at least one helical conductor strand (43) extends from a first end at a beginning of an arc-shaped antenna element (40) to a second end at an end of said arc-shaped antenna element (regarding the first end and the second end of the arc-shaped antenna element, see annotated Fig. 7 in Bodvarsson below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said at least one helical conductor strand extends from a first end at a beginning of said arc-shaped antenna element to a second end at an end of said arc-shaped antenna element as taught by Bodvarsson. This modification would provide an antenna element that takes less space (see Bodvarsson, col. 6, lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a number of turns of said at least one helical conductor strand is selected such that a desired transmitting and receiving frequency is set.
Hasani (col. 3, line 67 and col. 4, lines 1-3) teaches a number of turns of at least one helical conductor strand is selected such that a desired transmitting and receiving frequency is set (the paragraph in question discloses: “… the number of the turns is selected in such a way that the antenna is resonant at a desired frequency (operating frequency, transmission frequency).”; “operating frequency” is the equivalent term in the art for “transmitting and receiving frequency”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that a number of turns of said at least one helical conductor strand is selected such that a desired transmitting and receiving frequency is set as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said arc-shaped antenna element has a curved carrier, around said curved carrier said at least one conductor strand is helically wound.
Hasani (Figs. 8-9) teaches an antenna element (22) having a curved carrier (30), around said curved carrier said at least one conductor strand (24a) is helically wound.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said arc-shaped antenna element has a curved carrier, around said curved carrier said at least one conductor strand is helically wound as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 10 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one conductor strand is formed by a metallization applied to said curved carrier.
Hasani (Figs. 8-9) teaches at least one conductor strand (24a) is formed by a metallization applied to a curved carrier (30; Hasani, col. 6, lines 46-60 discloses: “The hollow body 30 is produced as an injection molded part from a plastic material suitable for laser direct structuring (LDS), wherein the antenna arms 24a, 24b, 24c are applied by using laser direct structuring to the hollow body 30 …” – as is known in the art, laser structuring is used to apply metallization to plastic materials).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said at least one conductor strand is formed by a metallization applied to said curved carrier as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one conductor strand is formed by laser structuring.
Hasani (Figs. 8-9) teaches at least one conductor strand (24a) is formed by laser structuring (Hasani, col. 6, lines 46-60 discloses: “The hollow body 30 is produced as an injection molded part from a plastic material suitable for laser direct structuring (LDS), wherein the antenna arms 24a, 24b, 24c are applied by using laser direct structuring to the hollow body 30 …”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said at least one conductor strand is formed by laser structuring as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said arc-shaped antenna element is detachably attached to said housing via a coupling point, said arc-shaped antenna element being locked to said coupling point in a formfitting manner.
However, Kvist (Fig. 2d; col. 9, lines 54-65) teaches an arc-shaped antenna element (210) is detachably attached to said housing (200) via a coupling point (208, 209; Kvist, col. 9, lines 58-65, discloses: “The antenna 210 extends within the pull-out handle 216. In some examples, the pull-out handle 216 is a hollow tube, and e.g. made of nylon, and the antenna extends within the tube. However, it is envisaged that the pull-out handle may be made in any other way, and … the antenna may be embedded within the material of the pull-out handle, etc.”; therefore, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art that the antenna in Kvist is detachably attached to the housing as opposed to being fixed in a certain position or location), the arc-shaped antenna element being locked to said coupling point in a formfitting manner (Kvist, col. 9, lines 56-58, discloses: “The antenna … interconnects with the faceplate at the second position 209.”; one skilled in the art would understand that an antenna, which is a part of a pull-out handle, interconnecting with the faceplate is equivalent to the antenna element being locked to the coupling point in a formfitting manner).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said arc-shaped antenna element is detachably attached to said housing via a coupling point, said arc-shaped antenna element being locked to said coupling point in a formfitting manner as taught by Kvist. This modification would provide an antenna element that can connect to the housing at different coupling points (see Kvist, col. 6, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said arc-shaped antenna element forms a half arc, wherein one end of said arc-shaped antenna element is oriented again in a direction toward said housing.
However, Kvist (Fig. 2a) teaches an arc-shaped antenna element (210) forms a half arc, wherein one end (207) of said arc-shaped antenna element is oriented again in a direction toward said housing (200).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said arc-shaped antenna element forms a half arc, wherein one end of said arc-shaped antenna element is oriented again in a direction toward said housing as taught by Kvist. This modification would provide a hearing device with radio frequency (RF)-antenna functionality at low cost and low device complexity, while maintaining good antenna performance in terms of antenna efficiency and bandwidth (see Kvist, col. 1, lines 60-67 and col. 2, lines 1-50).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said arc-shaped antenna element only extends above a surface area formed by an end wall of said housing and does not protrude laterally beyond said housing.
However, Kvist (Fig. 2b) teaches an arc-shaped antenna element (210) only extends above a surface area formed by an end wall (204) of said housing (200) and does not protrude laterally beyond said housing.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said arc-shaped antenna element only extends above a surface area formed by an end wall of said housing and does not protrude laterally beyond said housing as taught by Kvist. This modification would provide a hearing device with radio frequency (RF)-antenna functionality at low cost and low device complexity, while maintaining good antenna performance in terms of antenna efficiency and bandwidth (see Kvist, col. 1, lines 60-67 and col. 2, lines 1-50).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the impedance of said arc-shaped antenna element is set to a value of 50 ohm.
Hasani (col. 3, lines 54-67) teaches the impedance of an antenna element is set to a value of 50 ohm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that the impedance of said arc-shaped antenna element is set to a value of 50 ohm as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide an antenna element with maximum radiation efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 9 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the desired transmitting and receiving frequency is set at 2.4 GHz.
However, Kvist (col. 5, lines 42-52) teaches the desired transmitting and receiving frequency is set at 2.4 GHz.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that the desired transmitting and receiving frequency is set at 2.4 GHz as taught by Kvist. This modification would provide a hearing device having an antenna element operating at the desired frequency.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said two helical intertwined conductor strands are formed by laser structuring.
Hasani (Figs. 8-9) teaches two helical intertwined conductor strands (24a, 24b) are formed by laser structuring (Hasani, col. 6, lines 46-60 discloses: “The hollow body 30 is produced as an injection molded part from a plastic material suitable for laser direct structuring (LDS), wherein the antenna arms 24a, 24b, 24c are applied by using laser direct structuring to the hollow body 30 …”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said two helical intertwined conductor strands are formed by laser structuring as taught by Hasani. This modification would provide a compact antenna element having a high efficiency (see Hasani, col. 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 13 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said coupling point is a socket.
Bodvarsson (Fig. 7) teaches a coupling point which is a socket (regarding the socket, see annotated Fig. 7 in Bodvarsson above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said coupling point is a socket as taught by Bodvarsson. This modification would provide a convenient way of attaching and detaching the antenna element to and from, respectively, the hearing aid housing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kvist as applied to claim 1 in view of XIAN ANTANA MICROWAVE TECH CO LTD (CN 212968048 U, hereinafter Xian).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kvist teaches the hearing aid of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Kvist does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said two helical intertwined conductor strands are open at an end.
Xian (Fig. 1; page 4, paragraphs 6-7 in Xian-English translation) teaches an antenna element comprising two helical intertwined conductor strands (antenna arms 4 and 5) that are open at an end.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kvist so that said two helical intertwined conductor strands are open at an end as taught by Bodvarsson. This modification would provide a miniaturized lightweight antenna element with broadband high performance circular polarization radiation (see Xian-English translation, page 5, paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
