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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 07/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-25 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 and 26-30 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2022, 02/27/2023, 06/01/2023, and 05/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The apparatus of any of claim 1” should remove the phrase “of any” and should recite “The apparatus of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-6, 8, 13, 15, 19, and 28-29 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the loudness and tone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the one or more compensation output signals" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the output signal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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: balance signal generator in claims 1, 11, and 26. The phrase “balance signal generator” will be interpreted from any of the sensors described in [0033] of the instant specification including “accelerometers, gyroscopes, piezoelectric sensors”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 17, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (US 20150032186)(IDS)(Hereinafter Cushing) in view of Miller (US 20070167671)(IDS)(Hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 26, Cushing teaches An apparatus/method/One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Abstract “A system for rehabilitating patients affected by balance disorders with or without vestibular hypofunction” [0077] “The method may contain additional or fewer processes than shown and/or described, and may be performed in a different order. Computer-readable code executable by at least one controller or processor of the portable electronic device to perform the method may be stored in a computer-readable medium, such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium.”) comprising:
a processing path configured to convert sound input signals into a processing path output signal, … ([0003] “at least one microphone configured to sense and provides audio information” [0123] “a carrier signal is generated by circuitry within the wearable external unit using energy derived from the power source within the speech processor unit. Such a carrier signal, which is an AC signal, is conveyed over the cable to the headpiece where it is inductively coupled to the coil within the implanted cochlear stimulator. There it is rectified and filtered and provides a DC power source for operation of the circuitry within the implanted cochlear stimulator.”);
balance signal generator configured to generate a balance compensation output signal configured to compensate a vestibular deficiency ([0106] “The output of the balance sensor 706 is converted into an auditory stimulus [balance compensation output signal] that is routed via the headphones to the middle and inner ear. Efficacy of such an embodiment has been demonstrated in 7 adults who demonstrated statistically significant improvements in measures of balance and stability (median path length/duration (p=0.043), median root mean square sway (p=0.041) in the presence of head-referenced auditory stimulation.”); and
wherein the balance signal generator is configured to inject the balance compensation output signal into the processing path … ([0003] “generate control signals in response to the audio information provided by the at least one microphone and the balance information provided by the at least one balance sensor”).
However, Cushing does not teach a balance signal generator that injects balance compensation output signal into the processing path. Miller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an implantable cochlear microphone with a sound processing pathway (Fig. 1 and 5 and [0013]), and further teaches wherein the sound processing path comprises a modifier/filtering portion configured to modify the sound input signals (Fig. 11 where acoustic data is filtered, via 85, and then injected with Ha/Haf. [0089] “The optional third filter 85 (e.g., IIR3) may be used to remove the poles and zeros of the microphone acceleration response from the first and second filters IIR1 and IIR2, thus reducing their complexity. The optional time delay is used to model any simple time delay component of the feedback, which otherwise would simply additional parameters in the filter.”)
wherein the balance signal generator is configured to inject the balance compensation output signal into the processing path subsequent to the modifier (Fig. 5 and 11 where Haf is injected into Hm. [0070] “The output response Hm of the microphone 10 and the filtered output response Haf of the motion sensor may then be combined (270) to generate a net output response Hn (e.g., a net audio signal).”) to remove undesired signal components from the microphone output ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the balance signal generator that injects balance compensation output signal into the processing path of Miller, because such a modification would allow to remove undesired signal components form the microphone output.
Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches wherein the modifier is a filterbank (Fig. 11 where acoustic data is filtered, via 85, and then injected with Ha/Haf.).
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 is obvious over Goorevich, Miller, and Cushing. However, Goorevich does not teach a balance compensation input signal from one or more sensors. Miller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an implantable cochlear microphone with a sound processing pathway (Fig. 1 and 5 and [0013]), and further teaches further comprising: obtaining the balance compensation input signal from one or more sensors ([0057] “The motion sensor 70 [balance signal generator] may include one or more directions or "axes" of motion sensitivity. In this regard, the motion sensor 70 may monitor motion [balance compensation output signal] in a single axis or in multiple axes (e.g., three axes). Further, the motion sensor 70 may be located such that at least one axis of sensitivity of the motion sensor 70 is aligned with the principle direction of movement of the diaphragm 12.” [0064] “the motion sensor 70 further includes a filter 74 that is utilized for matching the output response Ha of the motion sensor 70 to the output response Hm of the microphone assembly 10.”) to remove undesired signal components form the microphone output ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Goorevich, with the balance compensation input signal from one or more sensors of Miller, because such a modification would allow to remove undesired signal components form the microphone output.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8, 12, 14, 20, 27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorevich et al. (US 20170347213)(IDS)(Hereinafter Goorevich) Cushing et al. (US 20150032186)(IDS)(Hereinafter Cushing) in view of Miller (US 20070167671)(IDS)(Hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a channel selector. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches wherein the processing path further includes a channel selector (Fig. 3-5 (348 channel selection module)) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the channel selector of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Regarding claims 3, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a inject the one or more balance compensation output signals into the processing path subsequent to the channel selector. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches wherein the balance signal generator is configured to inject the one or more balance compensation output signals into the processing path subsequent to the channel selector (See Fig. 4 where Masker signal injection is injected in 456 into sound processing pathway following channel selector 348.) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the inject the one or more balance compensation output signals into the processing path subsequent to the channel selector of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a inject the one or more balance compensation output signals into the processing path prior to the channel selector. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches wherein the balance signal generator is configured to inject the one or more balance compensation output signals into the processing path prior to the channel selector (See Fig. 3 where Masker signal injection is injected in 456 into sound processing pathway before channel selector 348.) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the inject the one or more balance compensation output signals into the processing path prior to the channel selector of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a processing path output signal is configured to cause a hearing percept, the loudness and tone of which encodes balance signals. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches wherein the processing path output signal is configured to cause a hearing percept, the loudness and tone of which encodes balance signals ([0049] “converts one or more sound signals into one or more output signals for use in compensation of a hearing loss of a recipient of the cochlear implant (i.e., output signals for use in generating electrical stimulation signals for delivery to the recipient as to evoke perception of the received sound signals).” The tone and loudness are inherent to the evoked perception of a received sound signal.) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the processing path output signal is configured to cause a hearing percept, the loudness and tone of which encodes balance signals of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Regarding claims 12 and 27, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a filtering portion includes applying a channelizing portion of the sound processing path to the sound input signal. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches wherein applying the filtering portion includes applying a channelizing portion of the sound processing path to the sound input signal (See Figs. 3-5 314 filterbank is channeled via post-filterbank module to the channel selection 348.) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the processing path output signal is configured to cause a hearing percept, the filtering portion includes applying a channelizing portion of the sound processing path to the sound input signal of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Regarding claims 14 and 29, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a stimulating tissue based on the processing path output signal. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches further comprising: stimulating tissue based on the processing path output signal (90042] “The stimulator unit 132 is configured to utilize the coded data signals to generate stimulation signals (e.g., current signals) for delivery to the recipient's cochlea via one or of the electrodes 138. In this way, cochlear implant 100 stimulates the recipient's auditory nerve cells in a manner that causes the recipient to perceive the received sound signals by bypassing absent or defective hair cells that normally transduce acoustic vibrations into neural activity.”) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the stimulating tissue based on the processing path output signal of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a wherein the method comprises obtaining the sound input signal from one or more sensors selected from the group consisting of: microphones, telecoils, and wireless audio sources. Goorevich, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing prothesis with an internal and external device for collecting sound information and filtration (Abstract and Fig. 3), and further teaches wherein the method comprises obtaining the sound input signal from one or more sensors selected from the group consisting of: microphones, telecoils, and wireless audio sources ([0036] “one or more sound input elements 108 (e.g., microphones, telecoils, etc.),”) to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the wherein the method comprises obtaining the sound input signal from one or more sensors selected from the group consisting of: microphones, telecoils, and wireless audio sources of Goorevich, because such a modification would allow to map selected signals for the optimal output ensuring user comfort.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (US 20150032186)(IDS)(Hereinafter Cushing) in view of Miller (US 20070167671)(IDS)(Hereinafter Miller) and Van den Heuvel (US 20190060649) (Hereinafter VdH).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 is obvious over Miller and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach one or more balance compensation channels for mapping the balance compensation output signal. VdH, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and implantable electrically stimulating hearing prosthesis by sampling sound and motion data (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to map the one or more balance compensation output signals to one or more dedicated balance compensation output channels ([0042] “Input channel 156(1) includes the microphone 140(A) and the associated conductor(s) 152 and input channel 156(2) includes the accelerometer 140(B) and the associated conductor(s) 152.”) to monitor electrical feedback attributed to noise ([0079]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the one or more balance compensation channels for mapping the balance compensation output signal of VdH, because such a modification would allow to monitor electrical feedback attributed to noise.
Regarding claims 13 and 28, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach one or more balance compensation channels for mapping the balance compensation output signal. VdH, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and implantable electrically stimulating hearing prosthesis by sampling sound and motion data (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the one or more balance compensation output signals are channelized ([0042] “Input channel 156(1) includes the microphone 140(A) and the associated conductor(s) 152 and input channel 156(2) includes the accelerometer 140(B) and the associated conductor(s) 152.”) to monitor electrical feedback attributed to noise ([0079]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the one or more balance compensation channels for mapping the balance compensation output signal of VdH, because such a modification would allow to monitor electrical feedback attributed to noise.
Claim(s) 6, 15-16, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (US 20150032186)(IDS)(Hereinafter Cushing) in view of Miller (US 20070167671)(IDS)(Hereinafter Miller) and Pelizzone (US 9511226) (Hereinafter Pelizzone).
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 30, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a one or more sensors configured to generate a balance compensation input signal, wherein the balance signal generator is configured to generate the one or more balance compensation output signals based on the balance compensation input signal. Pelizzone, in the same field of endeavor, teaches electrical stimulation of the cochlea using a speech processing path using microphones and signal sensor/accelerometer (Abstract), and further teaches further comprising:
one or more sensors configured to generate a balance compensation input signal, wherein the balance signal generator is configured to generate the one or more balance compensation output signals based on the balance compensation input signal (Fig. 6 lines 46-50 “Each input 3.2 is connected to a signal sensor 2 such that said input signal 3.2.1 corresponds to the output signal delivered by each signal sensor 2, like the gyroscopes and/or accelerometers used in the present example application of restoration of vestibular function.” Fig. 2 see balance compensation input signal 3.2.1 which goes through amplifies to pass 3.8 to generate the balance compensation output signal.) to modulate in amplitude the acoustic carrier waveform (Col. 6 lines 67). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the one or more sensors configured to generate a balance compensation input signal, wherein the balance signal generator is configured to generate the one or more balance compensation output signals based on the balance compensation input signal of Pelizzone, because such a modification would allow to modulate in amplitude the acoustic carrier waveform.
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach a stimulating the tissue using one or more dedicated balance stimulation electrodes based on a portion of the sound processing path output signal corresponding to the one or more balance compensation output signals. Pelizzone, in the same field of endeavor, teaches electrical stimulation of the cochlea using a speech processing path using microphones and signal sensor/accelerometer (Abstract), and further teaches wherein stimulating the tissue includes:
stimulating the tissue using one or more dedicated balance stimulation electrodes based on a portion of the sound processing path output signal corresponding to the one or more balance compensation output signals (Col. 7 lines 46-49 “amplitude modulated signal 3.10.1 is adapted to be fed into any speech processor 1.1.2 of known cochlear implants which then will deliver adequate electrical current signals to stimulate neural and/or muscular tissue.” Examiner notes that the sound processing path output signal includes the balance compensation output signal following the balance compensation output signal 3.2.1 going thorough amplifiers 3.5 and 3.8.) to restore vestibular function (Col. 7 lines 52-55). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the stimulating the tissue using one or more dedicated balance stimulation electrodes based on a portion of the sound processing path output signal corresponding to the one or more balance compensation output signals of Pelizzone, because such a modification would allow to restore vestibular function.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (US 20150032186)(IDS)(Hereinafter Cushing) in view of Miller (US 20070167671)(IDS)(Hereinafter Miller) and Kwasiborski et al. (US 20200294508) (Hereinafter Kwasiborski).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Goorevich does not teach a generating gait information. Kwasiborski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing aid partially implanted in the ear with a microphone for converting a sound (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the one or more sensors are configured to generate gait information ([0035] “the accelerometer may be used to identify the person wearing the hearing device based on gait analysis.”) to determine a deviation of the intended position ([0035]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the generating gait information of Kwasiborski, because such a modification would allow to determine a deviation of the intended position.
Claim(s) 10 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cushing et al. (US 20150032186)(IDS)(Hereinafter Cushing) in view of Miller (US 20070167671)(IDS)(Hereinafter Miller) and Udesen et al. (US 20190110137) (Hereinafter Udesen).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach encoding balance information with a pitch and roll axis with a first and second characteristic. Udesen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing aid partially implanted in the ear with a microphone for converting a sound (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the balance compensation output signal encodes balance information regarding rotation about pitch axis using a first characteristic and balance information regarding rotation about a roll axis using a second characteristic ([0093] “Thus like azimuth of the DOA, head yaw is a horizontal angle and for a non-moving sound source a change in head yaw leads to the same change in azimuth of the corresponding DOA.” [0094] “Head pitch is the angle between the x-axis of the head coordinate system and the horizontal plane.”) to determine head coordinate system ([0091]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the encoding balance information with a pitch and roll axis with a first and second characteristic of Udesen, because such a modification would allow to determine head coordinate system.
Regarding claim 18, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach encoding balance rotation about a first axis using pitch and loudness. Udesen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing aid partially implanted in the ear with a microphone for converting a sound (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the generating the balance compensation output signal includes encoding rotation about a first axis using pitch and encoding an extent of the rotation about the first axis using loudness in the balance compensation output signal ([0093] “Thus like azimuth of the DOA, head yaw is a horizontal angle and for a non-moving sound source a change in head yaw leads to the same change in azimuth of the corresponding DOA.” [0021] “the terms direction towards the sound source, and the direction of arrival (DOA) of sound originating from the sound source, in short just the DOA, denote the direction from the user wearing the binaural hearing system towards the sound source, e.g., with reference to the forward looking direction of the user.”) to determine head coordinate system ([0091]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the encoding balance rotation about a first axis using pitch and loudness of Udesen, because such a modification would allow to determine head coordinate system.
Regarding claim 19, claim 1 is obvious over Miller, and Cushing. However, Cushing does not teach encoding balance rotation about a first axis using pitch and loudness. Udesen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hearing aid partially implanted in the ear with a microphone for converting a sound (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the generating the one or more balance compensation output signals includes: encoding rotation about a second axis using a pitch and encoding an extent of the rotation about the second axis using loudness; and wherein the first axis and the second axis are selected from a group consisting of: a yaw axis, a roll axis, and a pitch axis ([0094] “Head pitch is the angle between the x-axis of the head coordinate system and the horizontal plane.” [0021] “the terms direction towards the sound source, and the direction of arrival (DOA) of sound originating from the sound source, in short just the DOA, denote the direction from the user wearing the binaural hearing system towards the sound source, e.g., with reference to the forward looking direction of the user.”) to determine head coordinate system ([0091]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Cushing, with the encoding balance rotation about a first axis using pitch and loudness of Udesen, because such a modification would allow to determine head coordinate system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10-11, 14-16, 18-19, 26, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,530 (Hereinafter Ramos) in in view of Miller (US 20070167671). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both apparatuses generating a balance compensation output signal based on the around processing pathway.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 26, Ramos teaches An apparatus (Claim 16 “An apparatus”) comprising:
a sound processing path configured to convert sound input signals into a sound processing path output signal, wherein the sound processing path comprises a modifier configured to modify the sound input signals (Claim 17 “, further comprising: a sound processing path configured to convert a sound input signal into a sound processing path output signal to cause stimulation via the first implantable stimulation assembly”); and
a balance signal generator configured to generate a balance compensation output signal configured to compensate a vestibular deficiency (Claim 16 “a balance signal generator configured to generate one or more balance compensation output signals that bypass the recipient's vestibular system and cause stimulation via the first implantable stimulation assembly after or while the vestibular tissue is stimulated by the second implantable stimulation assembly.”).
Ramos discloses all of the claimed invention except for “wherein the balance signal generator is configured to inject the balance compensation output signal into the sound processing path subsequent to the modifier.” However, Miller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an implantable cochlear microphone with a sound processing pathway (Fig. 1 and 5 and [0013]), and further teaches wherein the balance signal generator is configured to inject the balance compensation output signal into the processing path subsequent to the modifier (Fig. 5 and 11 where Haf is injected into Hm. [0070] “The output response Hm of the microphone 10 and the filtered output response Haf of the motion sensor may then be combined (270) to generate a net output response Hn (e.g., a net audio signal).”) to remove undesired signal components from the microphone output ([0071]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Ramos, with the balance signal generator that injects balance compensation output signal into the processing path of Miller, because such a modification would allow to remove undesired signal components form the microphone output.
Regarding claims 10, 18, and 19, Ramos teaches wherein the balance compensation output signal encodes balance information regarding rotation about pitch axis using a first characteristic and balance information regarding rotation about a roll axis using a second characteristic (Claim 19 “wherein the balance signal generator is configured to generate the one or more balance compensation output signals such that the one or more balance compensation output signals encode balance information regarding rotation about pitch axis using a first characteristic and balance information regarding rotation about a roll axis using a second characteristic.”).
Regarding claim 14, Ramos teaches further comprising: stimulating tissue based on the sound processing path output signal (Claim 16 “a vestibular signal generator configured to provide stimulation signals to the second implantable stimulation assembly to stimulate the recipient's vestibular tissue”).
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Ramos teaches wherein stimulating the tissue includes:
stimulating the tissue using one or more dedicated balance stimulation electrodes based on a portion of the sound processing path output signal corresponding to the one or more balance compensation output signals (Claim 17 “a sound processing path configured to convert a sound input signal into a sound processing path output signal to cause stimulation via the first implantable stimulation assembly.”).
Regarding claim 16, Ramos teaches wherein the generating of the balance compensation output signal is based on a balance compensation input signal (Claim 16 “a balance signal generator configured to generate one or more balance compensation output signals that bypass the recipient's vestibular system and cause stimulation via the first implantable stimulation assembly after or while the vestibular tissue is stimulated by the second implantable stimulation assembly.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796