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 with traverse of Group II, claims 9-15 and 21-33 in the reply filed on 07/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process”, and “claim 16 is directed to a process, while claim 9 is directed to an apparatus for carrying out the process.” This is not found persuasive because Group II, claims 9-15, drawn to a system comprising a bone conduction device having a bone conduction actuator, and a vibration transfer surface, wherein the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator to a point of contact within a pinna when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna.
Group III, claims 16-20, drawn to method comprising converting a sound signal to one or more control signals, and transmitting the one or more control signals to one or more actuators of a bone conduction device to cause the one or more actuators to deliver vibrations to a target location within a recipient's concha via a vibration transfer surface, wherein the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations from the one or more actuators to a point of contact within the concha when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna, wherein none of the control signals based on the sound signal are transmitted to an actuator configured to deliver vibrations to a target location within a recipient's ear canal.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Where the claims of Group II are directed to a system comprising a bone conduction device having a bone conduction actuator and a vibration transfer surface, wherein the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator to a point of contact within a pinna when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna; whereas the claims of Group III are directed to a method comprising converting a sound signal to one or more control signals, and transmitting the one or more control signals to one or more actuators of a bone conduction device to cause the one or more actuators to deliver vibrations to a target location within a recipient's concha via a vibration transfer surface, wherein the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations from the one or more actuators to a point of contact within the concha when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna, wherein none of the control signals based on the sound signal are transmitted to an actuator configured to deliver vibrations to a target location within a recipient's ear canal;
Groups II and III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Group II claims different special technical features “a system comprising a bone conduction device having a bone conduction actuator and a vibration transfer surface, wherein the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator to a point of contact within a pinna when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna”. Group III recites the special technical features “a method comprising converting a sound signal to one or more control signals; and transmitting the one or more control signals to one or more actuators of a bone conduction device to cause the one or more actuators to deliver vibrations to a target location within a recipient's concha via a vibration transfer surface”, and “wherein none of the control signals based on the sound signal are transmitted to an actuator configured to deliver vibrations to a target location within a recipient's ear canal”. These special technical features of Group III are not found in the Group II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 15 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuo Tamura (JP 2004141996).
Regarding claim 9, Tamura teaches a system comprising a bone conduction device (figures 1, 2) having a bone conduction actuator (12), and a vibration transfer surface (13, figures 1, 2, 4), wherein the vibration transfer surface (13, see the abstract and the text for the support transmission 13) is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator (12) to a point of contact within a pinna (11) when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna (figures 1, 2; also see the abstract and the text for the figures).
Regarding claim 15, Tamura teaches the bone conduction device having a housing (15, figure 1 and see the text for the pinna or auricle contact ring 15) configured to be retained within the pinna by its fit within the pinna as claimed.
Regarding claim 31, Tamura teaches the bone conduction device (figures 1, 2) that lacks a component configured to deliver vibrations directly to a non-pinnal surface (figure 1, note that the bone conduction device (12, 13) does not have a component to deliver vibrations directly to a non-pinnal surface or an ear canal).
Claims 9, 13, 15 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitwell et al. (US 2002/0039427).
Regarding claim 9, Whitwell et al. teaches a system comprising a bone conduction device (figures 1, 2-5, 6-8, 19a, 19b) having a bone conduction actuator and a vibration transfer surface (10, 14, 52, paragraphs [0005], [0007]-[0008], [0012]-[0013], [0024], [0067] and [0071]), wherein the vibration transfer surface (14, 52) is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator (14, 52) to a point of contact within a pinna (figures 1, 2-5, 6-8, 19a, 19b, paragraphs [0005], [0007]-[0008], [0012]-[0013], [0024], [0067] and [0071]) when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna (figures 1, 2, 4-5, 6-8, 19a, 19b, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], [0012]-[0013], [0016], [0061]-[0064], [0067] and [0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Whitwell et al. teaches the bone conduction device (10, 14, 30, 110) having a housing shaped to fit within the pinna (figures 1, 2, 4, 19b, paragraphs [0007]-[0008], [0061]-[0064], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 15, Whitwell et al. teaches the bone conduction device (10, 14, 30, 110) having a housing (figures 1, 2, 4, 19b) configured to be retained within the pinna by its fit within the pinna as claimed (figures 1, 2, 4, 19b, and see paragraphs [0007]-[0008], [0062]-[0064], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 31, Whitwell et al. teaches the bone conduction device (figures 1, 2-5, 6-8, 19a, 19b) that lacks a component configured to deliver vibrations directly to a non-pinnal surface (note that the bone conduction device in figures 1, 2-5, 6-8, 19a, 19b does not have a component to deliver vibrations directly to a non-pinnal surface or an ear canal).
Claims 9 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azima et al. (US 2007/0025574).
Regarding claim 9, Azima et al. teaches a system comprising a bone conduction device (30, figures 1, 2, 3) having a bone conduction actuator (44) and a vibration transfer surface (42, 44, 46, paragraphs [0006], [0012], [0028] and [0044]-[0045]), wherein the vibration transfer surface (42, 44, 46, paragraphs [0006], [0012], [0028] and [0044]-[0045]) is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator (44) to a point of contact within a pinna (paragraphs [0012], [0023], [0028] and [0044]-[0045]) when the bone conduction device is worn at least partially within the pinna (figure 1 and paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 31, Azima et al. teaches the bone conduction device (30, figures 1, 2, 3) that lacks a component configured to deliver vibrations directly to a non-pinnal surface (note that the bone conduction device in figures 1, 2, 3 does not have a component to deliver vibrations directly to a non-pinnal surface or an ear canal).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Petersen et al. (US 2019/0239006).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen et al. teaches a system comprising a bone conduction device (figures 2, 3) having a bone conduction actuator (9, paragraph [0083]), and a vibration transfer surface (9, 15a in figures 2, 3, 4), wherein the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations from the bone conduction actuator to a point of contact within a pinna (11, paragraphs [0015]-[0018], [0058] and [0066]-[0067]) when the bone conduction device (figure 3, paragraph [0076]) is worn at least partially within the pinna (figure 3),
Regarding claim 14, Petersen et al. teaches the bone conduction device comprising a projection (tube 15b and/or RITE speaker) configured to be inserted into an ear canal and retain the bone conduction device when the bone conduction device is worn (figure 3, paragraph [0076]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (US 2019/0239006).
Regarding claim 10, Petersen et al. teaches the system comprising a sound source, a sound processor configured to cause the bone conduction actuator to vibrate based on sound signal obtained from the sound source (paragraphs [0061] and [0080]).
Petersen does not specifically disclose that the system comprises a power source. However, it is well known in the art to provide a power source in a hearing aid system for an operation of the system and/or providing power to the components in the hearing aid system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a power source in the system of Peterson configured to operationally power one or more components of the system for an operation of the system.
Claim 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azima et al. (US 2007/0025574).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Azima et al. teaches the vibration transfer surface that is configured to conduct vibrations to a surface of a pinna ([0012], [0013], [0023], [0028] and [0044]-[0045]). Azima et al. does not specifically disclose that the vibration transfer surface is configured to conduct vibrations to a surface of a cymba and/or cavum of a concha. However, Azima does show that the transducer or the vibration transfer surface (42, 44, 46) can be coupled to a rear face of a user’s pinna adjacent to a user’s concha (figure 1, paragraph [0013]).
Since Azima does not restrict to any location of the transducer or the vibration transfer surface (42 44, 46) on the pinna (paragraph [0056]); it therefore would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any location for the transducer or the vibration transfer surface of the transducer on the pinna adjacent to the user’s concha such as providing the vibration transfer surface being configured to conduct vibrations to a surface of a cymba or cavum of the concha for providing an optimal location of the transducer or the vibration transfer surface and providing better acoustic response in the system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitwell et al. (US 2002/0039427) in view of Good et al. (US 2018/0084349) and/or Petersen et al. (US 2019/0239006).
Whitwell et al. teaches the system comprising a sound source (122) and a power source (134). Whitwell et al. does not specifically disclose the system comprising a sound processor as claimed. However, providing a sound processor for processing the signals in a system of a hearing aid is known in the art.
Good et al. and/or Petersen et al. teaches the system comprising a sound processor configured to cause the bone conduction actuator to vibrate based on sound signal obtained from the sound source (paragraph [0021] in Good et al.; and paragraphs [0061] and [0080] in Petersen et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a sound processor, as taught by Good et al. and/or Petersen et al. in the system of Whitwell et al. configured to cause the bone conduction actuator to vibrate based on sound signal obtained from the sound source for better processing the sound signals in the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitwell et al. (US 2002/0039427) in view of Good et al. (US 2018/0084349) and/or Petersen et al. (US 2019/0239006) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Feeley et al. (US 7,139,404) or Von Dombrowski et al. (US 2011/0091060).
Whitwell et al. teaches a cable (21, 58) coupling the bone conduction device to a remote sound source. Whitwell in view of Good et al. and/or Petersen et al. does not specifically teach the cable coupled to a behind-the-ear device that is configured to be worn behind an ear as claimed.
However, providing a cable coupling a transducer or a bone conduction device to a behind the ear device comprising sound source or sound processor or power source is known in the art.
Feeley et al. or Von Dombrowski et al. teaches a behind-the-ear device configured to be worn behind an ear and comprising one or more of the sound source, the sound processor and the power source (figure 1, 6A, 6B, 9 in Feeley; and figures 12, 13 in Von Dombrowski et al.) and a cable (20, 21, 22 in Feeley; and 110 in Von Dombrowski et al.) coupling the behind-the-ear device (30 in Feeley; and 101 in Von Dombrowski et al.) to a transducer (13, figures 1, 9 in Feeley; and 5 in figures 12, 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a behind-the-ear housing and a cable coupling a transducer or a bone conduction device to the behind the ear device comprising sound source or sound processor or power source, as taught by Feeley et al. or Von Dombrowski et al. for greater application and better providing an external sound source to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 21-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
East et al. (US 8,842,870) teaches an audio apparatus comprising a housing and a piezoelectric transducer mounted in the housing so that the transducer is adjacent a user’s pinna whereby the transducer excites the vibration in the pinna to cause it to transmit an acoustic signal from the transducer to a user’ inner ear.
Lin et al. (US 2018/0167712) teaches an earphone including a housing a first speaker and an audio outlet, wherein the housing includes an insertion end and a main body, wherein the insertion end is into the entrance of a user’s ear when worn by the user, and the main body extends from the insertion end and defines an auricle contact surface and an external connecting surface opposite to the auricle contact surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am-6:00 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571) 272-7547. 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.
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694 HL
January 6, 2026