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
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.
Claim 31 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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “matches” in the limitation requiring that recalibrating one or more parameters associated with the MI antenna “ensures that tuning of an MI transceiver of the sound processor matches tuning of the MI antenna of the battery module.” The claim does not specify what tuning parameter(s) of the MI transceiver and MI antenna are required to match, nor does it identify how recalibration of parameters associated with the MI antenna causes or “ensures” such matching. It appears the term “ensures” is being used to claim a functional result of the recalibration without identifying the mechanism producing that result. That is, it is unclear what exactly the system must do to “ensure” matching.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267).
Regarding Claim 1:
Eder et al. discloses a modular battery pack (Figs. 2-3, power source 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0020 which disclose the power source 16 can be removably positioned in a support area, and can be removed from a support area) comprising: a housing (Fig. 3, enclosure 20 and its related discussion); a battery disposed within the housing (Fig. 3, battery 22 disposed within the enclosure 20 as shown, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0023); and a magnetic induction (MI) antenna integrated in the housing and disposed adjacent to the battery (Fig. 3, power source antenna coil 24 integrated within the enclosure 20 and positioned adjacent to battery 22 as shown, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0023).
Regarding Claim 3:
Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Eder further discloses wherein the MI antenna is offset from a central region of the housing (Figs. 2-3, power source antenna coil 24 “offset” from the central region of enclosure 20 as shown).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267).
Regarding Claim 2:
Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Eder fails to teach wherein the MI antenna is centrally located within the housing. However, it would have been obvious to relocate Eder’s MI antenna to a central location within the housing because the particular location of an antenna within a housing is a matter of routine design optimization based on available spaced and desired magnetic coupling, and relocating the coil within the housing would have predictably maintained the magnetic-induction functionality. That is, selecting a given location for the MI antenna within the housing would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, as it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR Internation Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Knudsen (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0306730).
Regarding Claim 4:
Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Eder fails to teach wherein the housing includes an extension that extends away from the battery, wherein the MI antenna is disposed in the extension.
However, Knudsen discloses the housing includes an extension that extends away from the battery, wherein the MI antenna is disposed in the extension (Figs. 5-6, second circuit board 10 extended away from the first circuit board 8 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0026, 0043-0044, 0093, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Eder’s housing with an extension extending away from the battery, as taught by Knudsen, to extend the respective MI antenna away from the battery and other components, thereby providing additional spatial separation and reducing electromagnetic interference.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Meskens et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0067653).
Regarding Claim 5:
Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 1. Eder fails to teach wherein the modular battery pack is configured to connect with a behind-the-ear (BTE) sound processor via an interface connector.
However, Meskens et al. discloses wherein the modular battery pack is configured to connect with a behind-the-ear (BTE) sound processor via an interface connector (Figs. 1, 5B, BTE device 400 with compartment 460 for receiving replaceable battery packs, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0024, 0047, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the modular battery pack of Eder to connect with a BTE sound processor, as taught within Meskens, to utilize a compact and readily replaceable power source within such a device thereby eliminating potential downtime and ensuring potentially uninterrupted use without needing to access an electrical outlet.
Regarding Claim 8:
Modified Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 5. Modified Eder, in further view of Meskens, discloses wherein the BTE sound processor is configured to connect with a radio frequency (RF) coil via an RF port of the BTE sound processor (Figs. 1, 5B, etc., RF transmitter 482, RF receiver 481, RF link(s) 510, 520, the antenna respectively associated with the BTE sound processor, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0024-0026, 0047, etc.).
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 5. Modified Eder, in further view of Eder, discloses wherein the modular battery pack is detachable from the BTE sound processor, and wherein the battery is rechargeable via the MI antenna when the modular battery pack is detached from the BTE sound processor (Figs. 2-3, power source 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0006, 0020, 0024, etc. which disclose the power source 16 can be removably positioned in a support area, and can be removed from a support area, as well as the respective charging of the battery 22 via power source antenna coil 24).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Meskens et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0067653) and in further view of Dobson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0078562).
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 5. While Modified Eder discloses wherein the interface connector is configured to provide MI antenna signals to the BTE sound processor (Figs. 1, 5B, BTE device 400 with compartment 460 for receiving replaceable battery packs, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0024, 0047, etc.) Modified Eder fails to teach multiplexing the respective signals.
However, Dobson et al. discloses using common connector conductors to carry multiple signal types, including antenna signals, by multiplexing (or diplex) conductors (see, at least, paragraphs 0017, 0027, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interface connector of Modified Eder to multiplex the MI antenna signals with other signals, as taught within Dobson, as sharing connector conductors among signals having different frequency characteristics reduces the number of required conductors and connector contacts while permitting the respective signals to be separated by filtering.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Meskens et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0067653) and in further view of Karunasiri et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0021468).
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 5. While Modified Eder discloses wherein the interface connector is configured to provide MI antenna signals to the BTE sound processor (Figs. 1, 5B, BTE device 400 with compartment 460 for receiving replaceable battery packs, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0024, 0047, etc.) Modified Eder fails to teach wherein the interface connector provides signals via one or more pins.
However, Karunasiri et al. discloses it is known in the art for a respective connector to comprise one or more pins configured to facilitating the exchange of signals (see, at least, paragraphs 0003, 0040, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interface connector of Modified Eder to include one or more pins, as taught within Karunasiri, to precisely aligned conductive contacts that enable reliable transmission of data and control signals between devices, thereby ensuring signal integrity and compatibility.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Meskens et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0067653) and in further view of Knudsen (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0306730).
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 8. While Modified Eder establishes basic architecture with a removable battery module containing the MI antenna, Modified Eder fails to explicitly teach the MI antenna is disposed at a location within the removable battery module that ensures a threshold separation distance between the MI antenna and the RF coil.
However, Knudsen discloses the MI antenna is located at a region of the housing that is opposite the first region of the BTE sound processor to ensure that a threshold separation distance between the RF coil and the MI antenna is maintained (Figs. 1, 6, etc. and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0043-0044 which disclose the MI coil being provided adjacent to the battery and the battery being provided between the MI coil and other components to shield the MI coil from electromagnetic noise.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the MI antenna at a location that ensures a threshold separation distance from the RF coil of Modified Eder, as taught within Knudsen, because separating the MI antenna from other electronic circuitry by the battery provides additional physical separation and shielding between the respective components.
Regarding Claims 10-11:
Modified Eder teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 9. Modified Eder, in further view of Knudsen, discloses wherein the threshold separation distance provides a minimum clearance of approximately 3cm (30mm)/ 4cm (40mm) between the RF coil and the MI antenna (see, at least, paragraphs 0026, 0043-0044, 0093, etc. which disclose the battery plus first and second distances 26, 30, providing separation distance between the respective components, wherein the battery has a certain thickness, and the first and second distances may be 200-400mm.). While Modified Meskens fails to explicitly teach the minimum clearance of approximately 3cm (30mm)/ 4cm (40mm), Modified Meskens does disclose clearance values above the selected minimum clearance. It is further noted that selecting a particular minimum separation distance, such as approximately 30 mm or 40 mm, would have been a routine optimization of the antenna layout based on the particular operating frequencies, antenna characteristics, housing geometry, and desired interference performance, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskens et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0067653) in view of Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267).
Regarding Claim 24:
Meskens et al. discloses a device (Figs. 1, 5B, BTE device 400), comprising: at least one processor (Fig. 5B, signal processor 472 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0047); a radio frequency (RF) coil configured to be electrically connected to the at least one processor (Fig. 5B, RF transmitter 482 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0047); and a removable battery module configured to be electrically connected to the at least one processor, wherein the removable battery module includes at least one battery (Figs. 1, 5B, replaceable battery pack 460 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0024, 0047, etc.). While Meskens discloses a removable battery module, Meskens fails to teach wherein the removable battery module includes a magnetic induction (MI) antenna disposed adjacent the at least one battery.
However, Eder et al. discloses a removable battery module (Figs. 2-3, power source 16 and its related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0020 which disclose the power source 16 can be removably positioned in a support area, and can be removed from a support area), wherein the removable battery module includes at least one battery (Fig. 3, battery 22 disposed within the enclosure 20 as shown, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0023) and a magnetic induction (MI) antenna disposed adjacent the at least one battery (Fig. 3, power source antenna coil 24 integrated within the enclosure 20 and positioned adjacent to battery 22 as shown, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the removable battery module of Meskens to employ the removable battery module of Eder because Eder demonstrates that packaging a battery and magnetic induction antenna within a removable module provides a compact, readily replaceable power source.
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskens et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0067653) in view of Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Knudsen (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0306730).
Regarding Claim 25:
Modified Meskens teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 24. While Modified Meskens establishes basic architecture with a removable battery module containing the MI antenna, Modified Meskens fails to explicitly teach the at least one battery has a first side configured to face the RF coil and a second side configured to face away from the RF coil, and wherein the MI antenna is configured to be positioned adjacent the second side of the at least one battery.
However, Knudsen discloses at least one battery has a first side configured to face the RF coil and a second side configured to face away from the RF coil, and wherein the MI antenna is configured to be positioned adjacent the second side of the at least one battery (Figs. 1, 6, etc. and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0043-0044 which disclose the MI coil being provided adjacent to the battery and the battery being provided between the MI coil and other components to shield the MI coil from electromagnetic noise.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the MI antenna adjacent the side of the battery opposite the RF coil of Modified Meskens, as taught within Knudsen, because separating the MI antenna from other electronic circuitry by the battery provides additional physical separation and shielding between the respective components.
Regarding Claim 26:
Modified Meskens teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 24. While Modified Meskens establishes basic architecture with a removable battery module containing the MI antenna, Modified Meskens fails to explicitly teach the MI antenna is disposed at a location within the removable battery module that ensures a threshold separation distance between the MI antenna and the RF coil.
However, Knudsen discloses the MI antenna is disposed at a location within the removable battery module that ensures a threshold separation distance between the MI antenna and the RF coil (Figs. 1, 6, etc. and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0043-0044 which disclose the MI coil being provided adjacent to the battery and the battery being provided between the MI coil and other components to shield the MI coil from electromagnetic noise.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the MI antenna at a location that ensures a threshold separation distance from the RF coil of Modified Meskens, as taught within Knudsen, because separating the MI antenna from other electronic circuitry by the battery provides additional physical separation and shielding between the respective components.
Regarding Claims 27-28:
Modified Meskens teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 26. Modified Meskens, in further view of Knudsen, discloses wherein the threshold separation distance provides a minimum clearance of approximately 3cm (30mm)/ 4cm (40mm) (see, at least, paragraphs 0026, 0043-0044, 0093, etc. which disclose the battery plus first and second distances 26, 30, providing separation distance between the respective components, wherein the battery has a certain thickness, and the first and second distances may be 200-400mm.). While Modified Meskens fails to explicitly teach the minimum clearance of approximately 3cm (30mm)/ 4cm (40mm), Modified Meskens does disclose clearance values above the selected minimum clearance. It is further noted that selecting a particular minimum separation distance, such as approximately 30 mm or 40 mm, would have been a routine optimization of the antenna layout based on the particular operating frequencies, antenna characteristics, housing geometry, and desired interference performance, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karunasiri et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0021468) in view of Eder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0208267) and in further view of Hillan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2010/0244576).
Regarding Claim 29:
Karunasiri et al. discloses a method comprising: at start-up of a source processor of a modular behind-the-ear (BTE) device (see, at least, paragraphs 0002, 0028, 0079, etc.); determining an identifier of a battery module connected to the sound processor (see, at least, paragraph 0079 which discloses identifying a battery type during a boot sequence of the sound processor apparatus), wherein the battery module includes a battery (see ,at least, paragraph 0079 which discloses a battery module has a battery). Karunasiri fails to teach wherein the battery module includes a magnetic induction (MI) antenna.
However, Eder et al. discloses a battery module includes a battery (Fig. 3, battery 22 disposed within the enclosure 20 as shown, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0023) and a magnetic induction (MI) antenna (Fig. 3, power source antenna coil 24 integrated within the enclosure 20 and positioned adjacent to battery 22 as shown, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the battery module of Karunasiri to employ the battery module of Eder because Eder demonstrates that packaging a battery and magnetic induction antenna within a module provides a compact, readily replaceable power source. Modified Karunasiri fails to teach recalibrating one or more parameters associated with the MI antenna based on the identifier of the battery module.
However, Hillan et al. discloses recalibrating one or more parameters associated with the MI antenna based on the identifier of the battery module (Fig. 7, tuning controller 719, sensor(s) 716, battery 706, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0073-0074, claims 4-6, etc. which disclose recalibrating, read on by tuning, of the respective antenna based upon one or more sensed parameters associated with battery 706, such as the type of battery, in order to maintain an optimal supply of power to the battery). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Modified Karunasiri to recalibrate one or more parameters associated with the respective MI antenna based on battery module identifiers, as taught within Hillan, to utilize battery-specific information for optimizing power supply for the particular battery configuration, thereby improving overall system efficiency and adaptability.
Regarding Claim 30:
Modified Karunasiri teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 29. Modified Karunasiri, in further view of Karunasiri, discloses wherein the identifier of the battery module identifies the battery, a batch number of the battery, the MI antenna, a manufacturer of the battery or the MI antenna, or a combination thereof (see, at least, paragraphs 0020, 0070, 0079, etc. which disclose identifying a battery type, such as lithium-ion or zinc-air, associated with the battery module through the respective identification process. See, also, Hillan: paragraphs 0073-0074, claims 4-6, etc. which disclose the identifier of the battery module identifies the type of battery).
Regarding Claim 31:
Modified Karunasiri teaches the limitations of the preceding claim 29. Modified Karunasiri discloses wherein recalibrating the one or more parameters associated with the MI antenna ensures that tuning of an MI transceiver of the sound processor matches tuning of the MI antenna of the battery module (see, at least, Hillan: Fig. 7, tuning controller 719, sensor(s) 716, battery 706, and their related discussion; see, at least, paragraphs 0073-0074, claims 4-6, etc. which disclose recalibrating, read on by tuning, of the respective antenna based upon one or more sensed parameters associated with battery 706, such as the type of battery, in order to maintain an optimal supply of power to the battery).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N INGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7705. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-4:00 EST.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/JOSEPH N INGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights