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
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection or are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Weizman does not disclose or suggest "generat[ing] at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient, the at least one stimulation signal indicative of the at least one code [generated by the implanted circuitry]," as recited by amended claim 1…Applicant further submits that none of Babico, Goorevich, and Tan disclose or suggest these features of amended claim 1 that are missing from Weizman…. For example, the cochlear implant of Babico is configured to provide stimulation signals to the patient based solely on input signals from the externally-worn sound processor assembly 204 (e.g., based on sounds from a microphone 202 or audio signals from other systems 218; see, e.g., FIG. 2 of Babico). In other words, the cochlear implant of Babico is not disclosed or suggested by Babico to be able to generate stimulation signals that are indicative of at least one code generated by the implanted circuitry.”
Examiner respectfully states that although Weizman does not disclose the recited limitation, the proposed combination does yield “generate at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient”.
Specifically, Babico teaches a sensory prosthesis system (fig. 2: 200) comprising a cochlear implant system (combination of cochlear implant 208, electrode lead 210, electrodes 212, headpiece 206, and sound processor assembly 204), and teaches:
an apparatus (combination of headpiece 206 and cochlear implant 208) configured to be implanted in a recipient (fig. 2);
wherein the apparatus comprises
an implantable portion (cochlear implant 208) of the sensory prosthesis system (fig. 2) and
an external portion (headpiece 206) of the sensory prosthesis system (fig. 2),
the external portion external to the recipient (fig. 2) and in wireless communication with the implantable portion (214; [0034]), and
generating at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient ([0031]: stimulation representative of an audio signal is presented to a user subcutaneously by way of cochlear implant 208, since it’s implanted in the recipient (see above)).
Babico further teaches that sound processor assembly (204; [0031]) of the cochlear implant system can communicate with a mobile device [0035] to provide an audio signal to the user through a wireless communication (216; [0035]). Babico further teaches that the audio signal is processed to direct stimulation representative of the audio signal to the user of the cochlear implant system [0031].
The proposed combination would yield wherein the external portion of Babico receives the passkey code generation capability of the external portion of Weizman, and would also yield the apparatus comprising both an implantable portion and the external portion as part of a sensory prosthesis system comprising a cochlear implant system, and for the external portion to be in wireless communication with the implantable portion.
Additionally, the proposed combination would yield wherein the stimulation signal is generated subcutaneously within the recipient, so the recipient can hear the audio signal.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus taught by Weizman to provide an implantable portion of a cochlear implant system, the implantable portion configured to be implanted in or on a recipient, and generating at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient, as taught by Babico, because doing so will allow for audio signals from the mobile device to be played through the cochlear implant from the generated stimulation signal so that it is heard by the user.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In re claim 10:
“first communication interface”
“second communication interface”
In re claim 11:
“first communication interface”
In re claim 12
“third communication interface”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, 15-17, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizman et al. (US 2017/0289798) in view of Babico (US 2019/0076662) in view of Goorevich et al. (US 2017/0180874) in view of Tan (US 2016/0094541).
In re claim 1, Weizman discloses an apparatus (fig. 4: 80; [0036]) comprising:
an external portion (exterior of wireless accessory 80; see also fig. 3: exterior of accessory 72, which is similar to the wireless accessory 80; [0034]) configured to be worn by a recipient ([0054]: earphones are worn by a user); and
circuitry (fig. 4: internal components within wireless accessory 80) within the external portion (fig. 4),
the circuitry comprising at least one storage device (90) configured to store at least one secret ([0036]: memory 90 comprises text to speech module 88 which receives a passkey code i.e. a secret) indicative of an identity of the apparatus ([0036]: the generated passkey code is generated by the passkey code generator 86 and is specific to the wireless accessory; [0023]: generated passkey code is random and used for authentication with the wireless accessory),
the circuitry configured to:
generate, using the at least one secret, at least one code corresponding to the at least one secret ([0036]: passkey code is sent to text to speech module 88 which outputs an audio file i.e. a code),
the at least one code configured to be presented by the recipient to a system to authenticate the recipient so that the system provides the circuitry with access to a wireless communication [0002-0003] for transferring data [0020];
generate at least one stimulation signal within the recipient ([0036]: sound from the audio file being outputted through speaker 94 to a user is a stimulation signal),
the at least one stimulation signal indicative of the at least one code ([0036]: sound is a vibrational stimulation signal and is indicative of the code); and
apply the at least one stimulation signal to a cochlea of the recipient such that the at least one code is perceived by the recipient ([0036]: stimulation signal is indicative of the code and is heard by the recipient which means it must be applied to a cochlea of the recipient so they can hear the audio file from nerve impulses made by the cochlea in response to sound).
Weizman fails to disclose
an implantable portion of a cochlear implant system,
the implantable portion configured to be implanted in or on a recipient; and
circuitry within the implantable portion,
the at least one code configured to be presented by the recipient to a system to authenticate the recipient so that the system provides the recipient with access to a restricted functionality of the system;
generate at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within a recipient.
Regarding the limitations,
“an implantable portion configured to be implanted in or on a recipient” and
“generating at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient”,
Babico teaches an analogous sensory prosthesis system (fig. 2: 200) comprising a cochlear implant system (combination of cochlear implant 208, electrode lead 210, electrodes 212, headpiece 206, and sound processor assembly 204), and teaches:
an apparatus (combination of headpiece 206 and cochlear implant 208) configured to be implanted in a recipient (fig. 2);
wherein the apparatus comprises
an implantable portion (cochlear implant 208) of the sensory prosthesis system (fig. 2) and
an external portion (headpiece 206) of the sensory prosthesis system (fig. 2),
the external portion external to the recipient (fig. 2) and in wireless communication with the implantable portion (214; [0034]), and
generating at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient ([0031]: stimulation representative of an audio signal is presented to a user subcutaneously by way of cochlear implant 208, since it’s implanted in the recipient (see above)).
Babico further teaches that sound processor assembly (204; [0031]) of the cochlear implant system can communicate with a mobile device [0035] to provide an audio signal to the user through a wireless communication (216; [0035]). Babico further teaches that the audio signal is processed to direct stimulation representative of the audio signal to the user of the cochlear implant system [0031].
The proposed combination would yield wherein the external portion of Babico receives the passkey code generation capability of the external portion of Weizman, and would also yield the apparatus comprising both an implantable portion and the external portion as part of a sensory prosthesis system comprising a cochlear implant system, and for the external portion to be in wireless communication with the implantable portion.
Additionally, the proposed combination would yield wherein the stimulation signal is generated subcutaneously within the recipient, so the recipient can hear the audio signal.
generating at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus taught by Weizman to provide an implantable portion of a cochlear implant system, the implantable portion configured to be implanted in or on a recipient and generating at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient, as taught by Babico, because doing so will allow for audio signals from the mobile device to be played through the cochlear implant from the generated stimulation signal so that it is heard by the user.
Regarding the limitation, “circuitry within the implantable portion”, Goorevich is analogous in providing sound to a user [0020], and
teaches a hearing prosthesis (fig. 1: 20; [0020]) comprising an implantable portion (24),
circuitry (fig. 1: combination of 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, and 72) within the implantable portion (fig. 1),
wherein the circuitry is used to communicate with an external device
([0036-0038]: computing device 100 communicates with second unit 24 through wireless link 90, and can either receive data from the second unit 24, or to deliver data such as sound information to operate components of the hearing prosthesis; [0009]: implantable unit may function as a totally implantable hearing prosthesis that performs both sound processing and stimulation); and
wherein the circuitry comprises at least one storage device (66) configured to store instructions [0032] and additional data [0032].
Goorevich further teaches that having the internal unit be standalone from an external unit allows for a recipient to still be able to hear while they’re asleep, without requiring the external unit to be communicatively coupled to the internal unit [0009]. Goorevich additionally teaches that the computing device may be a smart phone [0040].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide circuitry within the implantable portion comprising of at least one storage device, as taught by Goorevich, because doing so will allow the implantable portion to be standalone from the external portion, which allows a recipient to still hear while they’re asleep without requiring the external unit to be communicatively coupled to the internal unit, allows the implantable portion to communicate directly with an external device such as a smartphone, and allows the implantable portion to store instructions as well as additional data.
Regarding the limitation, “the at least one code configured to be presented by the recipient to a system to authenticate the recipient so that the system provides the recipient with access to a restricted functionality of the system”, Tan teaches an analogous system [0007] to protect digital content [0007], and teaches at least one code ([0070-0071]: token (i.e. a code) is sent to a user once analyzer 227 approves a PIN that was submitted through smartphone 202) configured to be presented by a recipient to a system ([0071]: token entered on the smartphone 202) to authenticate the recipient [0071] so that the system provides the recipient with access to a restricted functionality of the system ([0071]: token provides access to tier 2 which will have restrictions as determined by a public cloud storage and sharing server 223; [0062-0063]: each of the tiers may have varying access to digital content).
Tan further teaches that different tiers of access can be provided [0063, 0068] with different types of restrictions [0062-0062, 0068], and are done so to protect the digital content of systems and devices [0008, 0062-0064].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the at least one code is configured to be presented by the recipient to a system to authenticate the recipient so that the system provides the recipient with access to a restricted functionality of the system, as taught by Tan, because doing so will allow for different tiers of access to be provided with different types of restrictions so that the digital content of various systems and devices are protected.
The proposed combination would yield wherein the implantable portion of the proposed combination yielded by Weizman and Babico receives the passkey code generation capability of the external portion of Weizman, as taught by Goorevich, because having a standalone internal unit allows for the recipient to still hear and communicate with the mobile phone without requiring connection with a sperate external portion, and for the code to provide the recipient with access to a restricted functionality of the mobile device, as taught by Tan, so that digital content of the mobile phone is protected.
In re claim 7, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the at least one code by inputting the at least one secret into at least one algorithm configured to output the at least one code ([0036]: text to speech module 88 is a program i.e. an algorithm that outputs the code).
In re claim 8, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the at least one secret comprises a private key ([0036]: the passkey code is considered to comprised of a private key since when the passkey code is generated, only the wireless accessory 80 has access to the passkey code until the audible representation of the passkey code is outputted) and the at least one code comprises a public key ([0036]: the audio file is considered to comprise a public key since it is outputted through speaker 94 to the user).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the circuitry is further configured
to wirelessly receive at least one trigger signal ([0024]: trigger signal is the signal between the devices when they are looking for one another) and,
in response to the received at least one trigger signal, to generate the at least one code and apply the at least one stimulation signal ([0024]: once the devices have found one another, a prompt for the passkey is activated which generates the passkey code).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields further comprising a device (smart phone 84; [0036]) external to the recipient ([0036]; see also fig. 3 where smart phone 70 is external to recipient 74), the device comprising:
at least one first communication interface (communication link 100) configured to wirelessly communicate [0032-0033] with the circuitry within the implantable portion (communication link 100 communicates with communication link 102 of accessory 80; [0037]);
at least one second communication interface (98) configured to receive at least one user input signal ([0037]: sequence of digits) from the recipient [0037],
the at least one user input signal indicative of the at least one code ([0037]: the sequence of digits is the same as the audible output of speaker 94)
the at least one first communication interface further configured to transmit at least one trigger signal to the circuitry ([0024]: one of the devices must go in discoverable mode and the other goes in searching mode which transmits the trigger signal that allows the devices to find each other),
the circuitry configured to generate the at least one code in response to the at least one trigger signal ([0024]: once the devices have found one another, the prompt for a passkey is activated, allowing the passkey code to be generated and used to create the audible output [0036]).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the at least one first communication interface is further configured to transmit the at least one code from the received at least one user input signal to the circuitry ([0037]: communication link 100 sends the entered sequence of digits to communication link 102 in the accessory 80).
In re claim 15, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the at least one code by applying at least one algorithm to the at least one secret ([0036]: text to speech module 88 is a program i.e. an algorithm that generates the audible representation of the passkey code).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the circuitry is further configured to initiate generating the at least one code in response to at least one trigger signal from a mobile device ([0036]: wireless accessory 80 and smart phone 84 searching for one another is the trigger signal which is used to generate the passkey code that then results in the output of the audio file; [0024]).
In re claim 17, the proposed combination (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated) yields wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
receive at least one second code from the mobile device ([0037]: communication link 102 of accessory 80 receives the sequence of digits (i.e. a second code) from communication link 100 of the smart phone 84); and
determine whether the at least one second code corresponds to the at least one code [0037].
In re claim 23, regarding the limitations, “apparatus comprising:
an implantable portion of a medical implant system,
the implantable portion configured to be implanted in or on a recipient; and
circuitry within the implantable portion,
the circuitry comprising at least one storage device configured to store at least one secret indicative of an identity of the apparatus,
the circuitry configured to:
generate, using the at least one secret, at least one code corresponding to the at least one secret,
the at least one code configured to be presented by the recipient to a system to authenticate the recipient so that the system provides the recipient with access to a restricted functionality of the system;
generate at least one stimulation signal subcutaneously within the recipient,
the at least one stimulation signal indicative of the at least one code; and
apply the at least one stimulation signal to internal tissue of the recipient such that the at least one code is perceived by the recipient.
In re claim 24, regarding the limitation, “wherein the medical implant system comprises an auditory prosthesis”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above, where the cochlear implant system is interpreted as an auditory prosthesis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizman et al. (US 2017/0289798) in view of Babico (US 2019/0076662) in view of Goorevich et al. (US 2017/0180874) in view of Tan (US 2016/0094541) in view of Meskens (US 2017/0161449).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields further comprising
an external portion of the cochlear implant (see in re claim 1 above),
the external portion external to the recipient and in wireless communication with the implantable portion (see in re claim 1 above).
The proposed combination fails to yield:
the external portion configured
to receive at least one trigger signal from an external device and
to provide the at least one trigger signal to the implantable portion.
Meskens teaches an analogous sensory prosthesis system ([0005]; fig. 1) comprising:
an external portion (fig. 1: headpiece device 108; [0019]) of the sensory prosthesis system (fig. 1) ,
the external portion external to a recipient (fig. 1) and in wireless communication with an implantable portion (130; [0020-0021]: headpiece device 108 communicates wirelessly through link 130 with cochlear implant 104).
the external portion configured
to receive at least one trigger signal from an external device ([0030]: headpiece device 108 receives security parameters and data negotiated (i.e. trigger signal is request for secured connection) with external device 106) and
to provide the at least one trigger signal to the implantable portion ([0030-0031]: headpiece device 108 transfers the received/negotiated security related parameters and data to cochlear implant 104 to establish connection).
Meskens further teaches that this provides a secured wireless connection between the external device and the cochlear implant through the external portion acting as a temporary proxy [0030-0031] until direct connection between the cochlear implant and the external device is established [0063], which then allows the external device to act as a remote control [0021] so that a recipient can wirelessly control settings of the implantable device with the external device [0021]. Meskens further teaches that having the external device communicate with the headpiece device first ensures that no attacker has unauthorized control over the implantable component [0026].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the external portion configured to receive at least one trigger signal from an external device and to provide the at least one trigger signal to the implantable portion, as taught by Meskens, because doing so allows for the external portion to act as a temporary proxy until direct communication between the external device and the cochlear implant is established, preventing unauthorized control of the cochlear implant, and allowing the external device to wirelessly change settings of the cochlear implant once secured connection is established.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizman et al. (US 2017/0289798) in view of Babico (US 2019/0076662) in view of Goorevich et al. (US 2017/0180874) in view of Tan (US 2016/0094541) in view of Yoder et al. (US 2016/0250486).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein the device further comprises at least one third communication interface configured to communicate with at least one server computer over a secure communication link,
wherein the at least one third communication interface is further configured to transmit the at least one code from the received at least one user input signal to the at least one server computer.
Yoder teaches a telemetry system (fig. 1: 100) that is analogous in providing authentication with an implantable device [0056],
wherein an external device (116) further comprises at least one third communication interface ([0074]: part of the external device which communicates with remote server device) configured to communicate with at least one server computer over a secure communication link ([0095]: sign in procedure is secure; [0074]),
wherein the at least one third communication interface is further configured to transmit at least one code from a received at least one user input signal to the at least one server computer ([0074]: a user wanting to log into an IMD application can enter a username and password (i.e. a code) into the external device, which is then relayed to a remote server device to authenticate the user and external device).
Yoder further teaches that once the user has logged into the application, the user can access or download information about specific vibration activity from the remote server [0075]. Yoder additionally teaches this this authentication method makes sure that the user is authorized to access the user account [0157], which also provides access to personal information regarding the implantable device [0094-0095].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the device further comprises at least one third communication interface configured to communicate with at least one server computer over a secure communication link, wherein the at least one third communication interface is further configured to transmit the at least one code from the received at least one user input signal to the at least one server computer, as taught by Yoder, because doing so ensures that the user and the external device have proper authorization to access personal information regarding the implantable device, as well as authorization to access and download information from the remote server.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizman et al. (US 2017/0289798) in view of Babico (US 2019/0076662) in view of Goorevich et al. (US 2017/0180874) in view of Tan (US 2016/0094541) in view of Ratias (US 2018/0234496).
In re claim 18, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Weizman unless otherwise stated)
wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit at least one authenticated link key to the recipient ([0037]: authenticated link key is only transmitted to the smart phone (and therefore the recipient) if the digits match as an indication of a secure wireless link (i.e. access granted) between the devices; [0020]),
the at least one authenticated link key indicative of whether the at least one second code corresponds to the at least one first code ([0037]: authenticated link key is only produced if the first code corresponds to the second code).
The proposed combination fails to yield
wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit at least one comparison signal to the recipient,
the at least one comparison signal indicative of whether the at least one second code corresponds to the at least one first code.
Ratias teaches a system of synchronizing information between multiple computing devices [0003] which is analogous in preventing unauthorized access of a computing device [0009], and teaches
wherein circuitry ([0085]: circuitry of second computing device) is configured to transmit at least one comparison signal to a recipient ([0085]: comparison signal is the third synchronization signal, which is either a confirmation for the first device to grant access to the user, or an indication of the fingerprints not matching and for the user to try again),
the at least one comparison signal indicative of whether a second code corresponds to a first code ([0085]: second computing device outputs the comparison signal depending on a comparison between a first code (the stored fingerprint) and a second code (the input fingerprint)).
Ratias further teaches that providing the user with a comparison signal alerts the user to whether they were granted access to a website [0085], or if they need to try getting access again [0085].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit at least one comparison signal to the recipient, the at least one comparison signal indicative of whether the at least one second code corresponds to the at least one first code, as taught by Ratias, because doing so will alert the user to whether they were granted access, or if they need to try getting access again.
The proposed combination would be for the circuitry of Weizman to transmit a comparison signal to the recipient, i.e. either an indication that the user was granted access, or an indication for the user to enter the code again, as taught by the second computer of Ratias transmitting an indication of the user granted access to a website on first computing device, or a mismatch message indicating for the user to try again.
In re claim 19, the proposed combination yields wherein the mobile device is further configured to:
provide the recipient with access to a restricted functionality (see in re claim 1, where providing access only provides access to a restricted functionality, as taught by Tan) in response to the at least one comparison signal being indicative of the at least one second code corresponding to the least one code (see in re claim 18 above, where upon confirmation that the first and second code match, the recipient is granted access); and
not provide the recipient with the access in response to the at least one comparison signal being indicative of the at least one code not corresponding to the at least one second code (see in re claim 18 above, where the user only has access to the secure wireless link when the first code and the second code match).
Claims 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizman et al. (US 2017/0289798) in view of Babico (US 2019/0076662) in view of Goorevich et al. (US 2017/0180874) in view of Tan (US 2016/0094541) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2019/0286806).
In re claim 25, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the medical implant system comprises a visual prosthesis.
Robinson teaches providing security between two devices [0008-0009] based on proximity [0008-0009], and teaches wherein proximity may be determined by detecting if two devices [0113] are constrained to being implanted in a same human body [0113], such as with a visual prosthesis ([0141]: bionic eye).
Robinson further teaches that various implantable devices [0141] can be used for performing security features [0007-0008, 0141], including a brain implant [0141], a seizure device ([0141]: brain or neural implant for epilepsy control is interpreted as a seizure device since epilepsy is characterized by reoccurring seizures), as well as a function electrical stimulation device ([0141]: brain pacemaker or deep brain/nerve stimulation).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the medical implant system comprises a visual prosthesis, as taught by Robinson, because various implantable devices can be substituted for one another as needed.
In re claim 26, regarding the limitation, “wherein the medical implant system comprises a brain implant”, see in re claim 25 above, where it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the medical implant system comprises a brain implant for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
In re claim 27, regarding the limitation, “wherein the medical implant system comprises a seizure device”, see in re claim 25 above, where it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the medical implant system comprises a seizure device for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
In re claim 29, regarding the limitation, “wherein the medical implant system comprises a functional electrical stimulation device”, see in re claim 25 above, where it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the medical implant system comprises a functional electrical stimulation device for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weizman et al. (US 2017/0289798) in view of Babico (US 2019/0076662) in view of Goorevich et al. (US 2017/0180874) in view of Tan (US 2016/0094541) in view of Kerber (US 2008/0194953).
In re claim 28, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the medical implant system comprises a sleep apnea device.
Kerber teaches an implantable prosthesis system [0016] that can either be various types of systems [0016], for instance a cochlear implant system [0016] or a pacemaker for obstructive sleep apnea [0016], depending on which disorder is being treated [0016].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the medical implant system comprises a sleep apnea device, as taught by Kerber, because the medical implant system may be selected between various treatment devices depending on which disorder is being treated.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached on (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796