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 .
Amendment
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/18/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 - U.S. Patent No. 9,339,649 to Cushing et al. (hereinafter, "Cushing").
Applicant traverses the rejections based on the argument that Cushing specifically discloses a "motion processor also includes a sound source, which is capable of creating an electrical signal that can be converted by the speech processor into an auditory stimulus. The output of the balance sensor 1206 is converted into an auditory stimulus that is routed via a direct or wireless connection through the speech processor that then leads to activation of the implanted mechanical stimulator." Cushing, col. 16, 11. 25-32. However, Cushing does not disclose that the auditory stimulus converted by the speech processor or an output of the balance sensor 1206 is also used to stimulate cochlea. In other words, Cushing fails to disclose that the same auditory stimulus used to stimulate vestibular tissue is also used to stimulate cochlear tissue (e.g., via the intracochlear stimulator 1222).
Applicant’s arguments with regards to Cushing’s teachings have been carefully considered and are persuasive and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, the claims are now rejected as discussed below in the current office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukesh et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0178025 A1, hereinafter “Mukesh”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mukesh teaches an apparatus and a method comprising (e.g. [0025], [ Fig.5, [0082]):
obtaining a sound signal, generating, based on the sound signal, cochlear stimulation configured to stimulate cochlear tissue; generating, based on the sound signal, vestibular stimulation configured to stimulate vestibular tissue (e.g. [0025]: receiving electrical impulses representing sound signals, Fig.5, [0082]);
delivering the cochlear stimulation to the cochlear tissue (e.g. [0025]: conveying the electrical impulses through the loop to the electrode array inserted within the cochlea, Fig.5, [0082]); and delivering the vestibular stimulation to the vestibular tissue (e.g. [0025]: inducing a time-varying magnetic field in the loop in response to the electrical impulses to create a transient electrical field that stimulates the cochlea and the vestibular system, Fig.5, [0082]). (Examiner’s note: Paragraphs [0025] and [0026] of applicant’s originally filed specifications states that other cochlear (and vestibular) stimulation techniques or combinations thereof can be used.)
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Mukesh teaches that generating the vestibular stimulation includes generating electrical stimulation via one or more vestibular electrodes disposed proximate an otolith organ (e.g. [0082], [0025]: implant system can include an electrode array adapted to be inserted into the cochlea, [0078]: the proposed magnetic array may be combined with traditional electrical stimulation.).
Regarding claim 3, Mukesh teaches that generating the vestibular stimulation includes generating vibratory stimulation (e.g. [0082]: inducing a time-varying magnetic field in the loop in response to the electrical impulses to create a transient electrical field that stimulates the cochlea and the vestibular system therefore the transient stimulation causes a vibratory stimulation to the vestibular tissue).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Mukesh teaches the sound signal includes a set of frequency components, and wherein at least a portion of the vestibular stimulation and a portion of the cochlear stimulation are based on a same subset of the set of frequency components (e.g. Fig.5 [0082]: the sound signals are converted into electrical impulses that stimulate both the cochlea and the vestibular system).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Mukesh teaches generating a vestibular optimized sound signal by optimizing the sound signal for delivery to target the vestibular tissue, and generating the vestibular stimulation is based on the vestibular optimized sound signal (e.g. [0025],[0082]). (Note : optimizing the sound signals to be delivered to the vestibular tissue would be viewed inherent to the disclosure of Mukesh for providing the optimal experience. Moreover, claim 5 does not indicate which parameters of the vestibular signal are to be optimized.)
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Mukesh teaches conversion of the sound signals to electrical impulses (e.g. [0025],[0082]) and therefore they teach the fundamental frequency is enhanced sufficiently by the circuitry enough to be effective. “Enhanced” being a relative term.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Mukesh teaches conversion of the sound signals to electrical impulses (e.g. [0025],[0078]: the proposed magnetic array may be combined with traditional electrical stimulation, [0082]) and therefore they teach the cochlear stimulation is electrical stimulation.
Regarding claim 10, Mukesh teaches the vestibular stimulator comprises a plurality of intravestibular electrodes (e.g. [0055]-[0058]).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Mukesh teaches the sound processor is configured to generate the vestibular stimulation without contribution of the frequency components outside of the subset (e.g. Fig.5 [0082]: the sound signals are converted into electrical impulses that stimulate both the cochlea and the vestibular system).
Regarding claims 13 Mukesh teaches receiving electrical impulses representing sound signals which are conveyed to the electrode array inserted within the cochlea and can include inducing a time-varying magnetic field to create a transient electrical field that stimulates the cochlea and the vestibular system ( e.g. Fig. 5) and therefore they teach the sound processor is configured to generate the vestibular stimulation such that the vestibular stimulation is perceived as a hearing percept rather than a balance percept (since sound signals are converted into electrical impulses that are then used to stimulate the vestibular system Note: the claim does not recite any additional processing that is done for the vestibular system to perceive the stimulation as a hearing precent rather than a balance precept).
Regarding claim 14, Mukesh teaches the vestibular stimulator is configured to be disposed proximate at least one of an otolith organ or an oval window of a recipient (e.g. [0025], [0082]).
Regarding claim 18, Mukesh teaches generating the vestibular-optimized sound signal includes: amplifying portions of the sound signal that are within a detection band of a vestibular organ (e.g. [0082], Fig.5: sound signals are converted into electrical impulses that are then used to stimulate the vestibular system and therefore portions of the sound signals are amplified to be within a detection band of the vestibular organ).
Regarding claim 19, Mukesh teaches tuning the sound signal to cause a beneficial balance percept (e.g. [0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALLIKA DIPAYAN FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8 am-5pm 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, BENJAMIN KLEIN can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/MALLIKA D FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights