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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 25, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 have been amended, claim(s) 11-20 have been cancelled, and no claim(s) have been added. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant principally argues that the prior art Harrison does not teach the newly amended limitations and specifically that the teachings of Harrison detail stimulating only the high frequencies. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the same paragraph that the applicant cites to on pg. 3 lines 24-28 details that the hybrid cochlear implant can provide both low frequency and high frequency through the electrodes. Furthermore, on pg. 4 lines 13-31, and details that the system can provide stimulation from low frequencies to high frequencies without detailing and quantifying what the prior art classifies as high or low frequencies. Therefore, the examiner believes it is unfair to say that the prior art doesn’t teach the limitations as the prior art does not detail a specific “hz” that is a high frequency.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the new grounds of rejection set forth above. The applicant asserts that the prior art rejections do not teach or suggest the features as now amended into the amended claims; therefore, the examiner has applied a new combination of prior art to reject the claims and address the arguments necessitated by such amendment.
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) 1, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (CA 2,370,860 A1) (as listed on the IDS submitted on 9/26/22) in view of Carter (US 2020/0206499 A1) (PCT filed on 9/25/18).
Regarding claim 1, Harrison discloses a system comprising: a cochlear implant configured to be implanted within a recipient (e.g. pg. 7 lines 6-10 Fig 1:50), the cochlear implant coupled to a lead (e.g. Fig 1:52) having a plurality of electrodes (e.g. Fig 1:54); a controller (e.g. Fig 4:72/74) communicatively coupled to the cochlear implant and configured to: direct the cochlear implant to apply stimulation current to a first electrode set of the plurality of electrodes to represent the audio signal to the recipient (e.g. pg. 4 lines 13-28 and pg. 10 lines 6-10); and direct the cochlear implant to apply treatment current to a second electrode set of the plurality of electrodes to treat tinnitus within the recipient, the second electrode set including electrodes different from the first electrode set (e.g. pg. 4 lines 13-16 and pg.10 lines 6-10 the system can utilize sending a special pulse on some of the electrodes as the system comprises multiple electrodes as detailed in Fig 2:54).
While Harrison is silent regarding wherein the second electrode set includes electrodes of the plurality of electrodes associated with stimulation sites corresponding to perceived frequencies that are below 1500 hertz (Hz). The instant specification fails to detail any criticality to the frequencies being below 1500 Hz. The instant specification details in [0048] “For example, some tinnitus treatment schemes may involve stimulation below threshold frequencies (e.g., 1500 hertz (Hz), or any other suitable threshold).” Therefore, this appears to be a change in size/proportion or making adjustable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable threshold per the instant specification [0048]. See MPEP 2144.04.
However, Carter discloses a cochlear implant having implanted electrodes positioned to stimulate wherein the second electrode set includes electrodes of the plurality of electrodes associated with stimulation sites corresponding to perceived frequencies that are below 1500 hertz (Hz) (e.g. [0056]-[0058]; [0060]; [0065] claims 1 and 6 in combination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Harrison to incorporate the teachings of Carter to stimulate corresponding to perceived frequencies that are below 1500 hertz by utilizing the second set of electrodes already included in Harrison to in order to treat the tinnitus with actual range of the tinnitus sounds that the user is hearing (e.g. Carter [0056]-[0058]; [0060]; [0065] claims 1 and 6 in combination).
Regarding claim 4, modified Harrison discloses wherein the applying of the stimulation current to the first electrode set is concurrent to the applying of the treatment current to the second electrode set (e.g. Harrison pg. 10 line 11-16 and 27 application f).
Regarding claim 5, modified Harrison discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: access a treatment regimen to treat tinnitus in the recipient (e.g. Harrison pg. 4 lines 13-16 and pg.10 lines 6-10 the system can utilize sending a special pulse on some of the electrodes as the system comprises multiple electrodes as detailed in Fig 2:54 ).
Modified Harrison is silent regarding based on the treatment regimen or a change in the treatment regimen, dynamically change at least one of the first electrode set and the second electrode set to include a different set of the plurality of electrodes.
However, Harrison does disclose that the treatment of Tinnitus by the system can utilize sending a special pulse on some of the electrodes as the system comprises multiple electrodes as detailed in Fig 2:54 (e.g. pg. 4 lines 13-16 and pg.10 lines 6-10). Therefore, there are a first set of electrodes for stimulation and a second set of electrodes that send the special pulse.
The instant specification details in [0048] that the grouping of the first and second electrode may dynamically change and/or be based on corresponding stimulation sites. Therefore, this merely appears to be a rearrangement of parts and the arrangement of the electrodes to have an alternating arrangement between the electrode sets would have been obvious to reach the desired stimulation sites. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, modified Harrison is silent regarding wherein: the plurality of electrodes comprises a plurality of sequentially arranged electrodes including a first electrode, a second electrode adjacent to the first electrode, a third electrode adjacent to the second electrode, and a fourth electrode adjacent to the third electrode; the first electrode set includes the first and third electrodes; and the second electrode set includes the second and fourth electrodes.
However, modified Harrison does disclose that the treatment of Tinnitus by the system can utilize sending a special pulse on some of the electrodes as the system comprises multiple electrodes as detailed in Fig 2:54 (e.g. pg. 4 lines 13-16 and pg.10 lines 6-10). Therefore, there are a first set of electrodes for stimulation and a second set of electrodes that send the special pulse.
The instant specification details in [0048] that the grouping of the first and second electrode may dynamically change and/or be based on corresponding stimulation sites. Therefore, this merely appears to be a rearrangement of parts and the arrangement of the electrodes to have an alternating arrangement between the electrode sets would have been obvious to reach the desired stimulation sites. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, modified Harrison discloses wherein the second electrode set consists of electrodes of the plurality of electrodes associated with stimulation sites corresponding to perceived frequencies that are below a threshold frequency (e.g. Harrison pg. 4 lines 13-16, pg. 9 lines 12-15, pg. 10 lines 1-5 the system utilizes low and high frequencies for stimulation but states suppression may occur at the same time that acoustic enhancement takes place for the lower frequencies Carter: [0056]-[0058]; [0060]; [0065] claims 1 and 6 in combination).
Regarding claim 8, modified Harrison discloses wherein the threshold frequency is 1500 hertz (Hz) (e.g. Carter: [0056]-[0058]; [0060]; [0065] claims 1 and 6 in combination).
Additionally, the instant specification details the threshold frequency may be 1500 hertz or any other suitable threshold in [0048]. Therefore, there doesn’t appear to be any criticality in the threshold frequency being 1500 Hz.
Regarding claim 9, modified Harrison discloses wherein the applying the treatment current includes applying phantom electrical stimulation by way of a most apical electrode or a most basal electrode of the second electrode set and one or more compensating electrodes of the second electrode set (e.g. Harrison pg. 4 lines 13-16, pg. 9 lines 12-15, pg. 10 lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Carter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Polak (US 2016/0121117 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Harrison is silent regarding wherein the directing of the cochlear implant to apply the stimulation current comprises directing the cochlear implant to apply weighted amounts of the stimulation current to a pair of electrodes of the first electrode set in accordance with a current steering strategy to stimulate a stimulation site located in between stimulation sites associated with the pair of electrodes.
However, Polak discloses tinnitus masking and stimulation wherein the directing of the cochlear implant to apply the stimulation current comprises directing the cochlear implant to apply weighted amounts of the stimulation current to a pair of electrodes of the first electrode set in accordance with a current steering strategy to stimulate a stimulation site located in between stimulation sites associated with the pair of electrodes (e.g. [0043]-[0046]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified system of Harrison to incorporate the teachings of Polak wherein the directing of the cochlear implant to apply the stimulation current comprises directing the cochlear implant to apply weighted amounts of the stimulation current to a pair of electrodes of the first electrode set in accordance with a current steering strategy to stimulate a stimulation site located in between stimulation sites associated with the pair of electrodes for the purpose of adjusting the stimulation based on the tinnitus level (e.g. Polak abstract)
Regarding claim 3, newly modified Harrison discloses wherein: the stimulation site is associated with an electrode of the second electrode set (e.g. Harrison pg. 4 lines 13-16, pg. 5 lines 29-32 and pg. 6 lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison in view of Carter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hochmair (US 2007/0203536 A1)
Regarding claim 10, modified Harrison is silent regarding further comprising a receiver coupled to the controller, and wherein the controller is further configured to direct the receiver to apply acoustic stimulation to the recipient in conjunction with the applying the treatment current to treat tinnitus within the recipient.
However, Hochmair discloses a tinnitus suppressing cochlear implant further comprising a receiver coupled to the controller, and wherein the controller is further configured to direct the receiver to apply acoustic stimulation to the recipient in conjunction with the applying the treatment current to treat tinnitus within the recipient (e.g. [0004]; [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified system of Harrison to incorporate the teachings of Hochmair of further comprising a receiver coupled to the controller, and wherein the controller is further configured to direct the receiver to apply acoustic stimulation to the recipient in conjunction with the applying the treatment current to treat tinnitus within the recipient for the purpose of utilizing another known embodiment in which the cochlear implant is used in combination with a receiver (e.g. Hochmair [0004]; [0024]).
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 JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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 at (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.
Jessandra Hough April 29, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights