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 on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding newly amended claim 1 and claim 9, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose “…the controller configured to:…receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus, determine, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient…”. Specifically, Applicant argues that since Potts is directed to delivering a stimulus (tinnitus masker stimulus) that reduces the likelihood that sleep will be disturbed [0049], it would not have been obvious to modify the system/method as taught by Potts to receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus because a user cannot provide user input if the user is asleep.
Examiner notes that as claims 1, 13, and 18 are currently written, the claim does not require the user input to be received at a specific time. Therefore, the user could provide input after waking regarding their sleep quality. Examiner maintains it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method/system as taught by Potts with receiving user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus as taught by Oplinger. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking signal helped the user fall asleep and stay asleep.
Applicant further argues that Oplinger does not disclose receiving user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Oplinger discloses the recipient could input his or her state, such as by pressing an icon indicating relaxed, happy, ecstatic, aggravated or tired [0106]. Examiner maintains that the patient state as taught by Oplinger teaches receiving user input indicative of an improvement or worsening of tinnitus. For example, if a user’s tinnitus worsens and the masking stimulus disclosed by Potts fails to prevent sleep disturbance, then the user may be tired, aggravated, or grumpy. However, if the patient was able to sleep due to the masking stimulus disclosed by Potts, then the patient may be relaxed or happy. These behavioral or emotional states are indicative of an improvement or worsening of the tinnitus.
Applicant further argues that the cited art fails to disclose determining based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Viirre discloses determining, based on first sensor data (EEG), a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient (Col. 5, ln 3-9), while Searchfield discloses determining, based on second sensor data (HRTFs), a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient ([0078] and [0122-123]); and determining a change in perceived tinnitus based off of patient feedback [0014].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Potts with determining, based on first sensor data, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, determining, based on second sensor data, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and determining a change in perceived tinnitus based off of patient feedback as taught by Viirre and Search field. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of personalizing tinnitus masking to a user (Searchfield, [0080]) and/or habituating the subject to their tinnitus (Viirre, Col. 5, ln 13-14).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites, “…by the controller and based on the determining the change in..”. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite, “…by the controller and based on [[the determining the]] determined change in…”. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites the limitations, “…receive user input indicative of an effect of the electrical stimulation on the tinnitus; and the determining the change in perceived tinnitus is further based on the user input”. Claim 13 recites, “receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus, determine, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient.” It is unclear how the above limitations recited in 17 further limit the limitations recited in claim 13.
Claim 20 recites the limitations, “receiving, by the controller, user input indicative of an effect of the electrical stimulation on the tinnitus; and wherein the determining the change in perceived tinnitus is further based on the user input”. Claim 18 recites the limitations, “receiving user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus; determining, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient.” It is unclear how the above limitations recited in claim 20 further limit the limitations recited in claim 18,
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts (US 2021/0260378) in view of Oplinger et al (US 2021/0196960) hereinafter Oplinger and Viirre (US 7,081,085) and Searchfield (US 2012/0283593) and further in view of Hochmair et al (US 2007/0203536) hereinafter Hochmair.
Regarding claim 1, Potts discloses a system comprising:
an implantable stimulator (prosthesis 610) configured to be implanted within a recipient and apply electrical stimulation (stimulation 820) configured to treat tinnitus within the recipient [0057];
an implantable sensor (electrodes) configured to be implanted within the recipient and output first sensor data representative of a first property associated with the recipient ([0054] EEG system utilizes electrodes in any combination to implement EEG monitoring of the recipient);
an external sensor (microphone) configured to be external to the recipient and output second sensor data representative of a second property associated with the recipient ([0055] separate device (690) can include a microphone to record the sounds); and
a controller (processor of the cochlear implant) communicatively coupled to the implantable stimulator, the implantable sensor, and the external sensor ([0055] is the processor of the cochlear implant or other prostheses, whether implanted or external, that is utilized to execute the analysis), the controller configured to:
direct the implantable stimulator to apply a first electrical stimulation (Figure 4: step 420) to treat the tinnitus within the recipient [0060];
receive the first (EEG) and second (microphone) sensor data ([0060] the implant or other device monitors the EEG, and/or microphone for signs of wakefulness)
change, based on the first (EEG) and second (microphone) sensor data, a parameter of the first electrical stimulation to generate a second electrical stimulation ([0060] the prostheses would reduce the volume of the stimulus) to treat the tinnitus within the recipient, and
direct the implantable stimulator to apply the second electrical stimulation ([0060] a continuous or periodic feedback loop where the stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors).
Examiner acknowledges that while Potts discloses delivering electrical stimulation [0030], Potts fails to explicitly disclose a controller configured to: direct the implantable stimulator to apply a first electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient. Since the electrical stimulation is generally recited in the claim (no parameters were recited), the electrical stimulation disclosed by Potts reads on the claimed electrical stimulation under the broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in order to further advance prosecution, Examiner notes that Hochmair discloses a controller (processing module) configured to: treat tinnitus by delivering electrical stimulation via a cochlear implant [0008-0009]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prosthesis as taught by Potts to treat tinnitus using electrical stimulation as taught by Hochmair. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of using electrical stimulation to suppress tinnitus (Hochmair, Abstract).
Potts fails to disclose a controller configured to: receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus,
determine, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and
change, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the first electrical stimulation to generate a second electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient, and
direct the implantable stimulator to apply the second electrical stimulation.
However, Oplinger discloses a controller (medical device) configured to: receive user input (patient state) indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus ([0106] the medical device is configured to receive information indicative of a state of the recipient).
Viirre discloses a controller (computer/PC workstation) being configured to: direct a stimulator (electronic sound player) to apply a first stimulation (presented sound; Col. 4, ln 52-56);
determine, based on first sensor data (EEG), a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient (Col. 5, ln 3-9: determines if the tinnitus is decreasing),
change, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a stimulation (Col. 5, ln 8-11: when if these desirable changes are not present, the computer slightly alters the sound stimuli), and
direct a stimulator to apply a second stimulation (Col. 5, ln 11-14: the computer continuously monitors for the feedback signatures and drives the sound stimuli appropriately).
Searchfield discloses a controller ([0086] audio control device) being configured to: direct a stimulator (Fig 1: sound delivery system 24) to apply a first stimulation ([0077] calibration 62);
determine, based on second sensor data ([0122-0123] HRTFs), and user input ([0096] feedback system) a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient ([0078] assessing the spatial location 16 in 3D auditory space of the sound source location of the tinnitus as perceived by the patient; [0122-123] HRTF is measured using external microphones during the tinnitus location diagnosis step 16; [0096] playback to the patient for their feedback on pitch-matching to their tinnitus),
change, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the first stimulation (Fig 1: calibration 62) to generate a second stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient, ([0080] sound parameters personalized 18 in view of the patient's tinnitus diagnosis; [0096] Depending on their feedback, the center frequency 167 and/or bandwidth 168 of the stimuli may be adjusted to generate new test sounds to enable a closer pitch-match), and
direct a stimulator to apply the second stimulation ([0103] generates a tinnitus synthetic sound 15 that most closely matches at least one, but preferably all, sound attributes of the tinnitus as perceived by the patient).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Potts with a controller configured to: receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus, determine, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and change, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the first electrical stimulation to generate a second electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient, and direct the implantable stimulator to apply the second electrical stimulation as taught by Oplinger, Viirre and Searchfield. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking stimulus disclosed by Potts helped the user fall asleep as well as personalizing tinnitus masking to a user (Searchfield, [0080]) and/or habituating the subject to their tinnitus (Viirre, Col. 5, ln 13-14).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Potts discloses wherein the first property includes one or more of an electroencephalograph (EEG) reading, an alpha brain wave reading, a stress level, an otoacoustic emission level, a body temperature, a heart rate, an oxygen level, or a blood pressure level ([0054] EEG monitoring).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Potts discloses wherein the second property includes one or more of a stress level, an otoacoustic emission level, a body temperature, a heart rate, an oxygen level, a blood pressure level, a skin conductance level, a sound pressure level in an environment of the recipient, or a movement of the recipient ([0055] this separate device can include a microphone to record the sounds).
Regarding claim 4, Potts discloses the first property includes an EEG reading ([0060] the implant or other device monitors the EEG and/or microphone); and
the changing the parameter of the first electrical stimulation includes changing an amplitude (stopping stimulation) of the first electrical stimulation based on a change in a component of the EEG reading ([0060] stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors).
Regarding claim 5, Potts discloses the second property includes a sound pressure level of an environment of the recipient ([0060] the implant or other device monitors the EEG and/or microphone); and
the changing the parameter of the first electrical stimulation includes changing an amplitude (stopping stimulation) of the first electrical stimulation based on a change in the sound pressure level ([0060] stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors).
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 19 Potts discloses the first property includes an EEG reading ([0060] the implant or other device monitors the EEG and/or microphone);
the second property includes a sound pressure level of an environment of the recipient ([0060] the implant or other device monitors the EEG and/or microphone);
and the changing the parameter of the electrical stimulation includes changing an amplitude (stopping stimulation) of the first electrical stimulation based on a change in at least one of a component of the EEG reading and the sound pressure level ([0060] stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Potts discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to receive the user input by way of an interface communicatively coupled to an external device. However, Oplinger discloses wherein the controller (medical device) is configured to receive the user input by way of an interface communicatively coupled to an external device ([0106] real time input into the medical device by another device, such as the handheld device). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Potts with the controller is configured to receive the user input by way of an interface communicatively coupled to an external device as taught by Oplinger. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking signal helped the user fall asleep and stay asleep.
Regarding claim 9, Potts discloses wherein the controller is further configured to correlate, based on the first sensor data (EEG) and the second sensor data (microphone), an effect on the tinnitus (patient wakefulness; Examiner notes that if the user is in stages 1-4 of sleep, then the tinnitus is not affecting the patient) to a change in least one of the first and the second property ([0060 feedback loop where the stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors, which data is indicative of the state of sleep of the recipient).
Potts fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to determine, based on the user input, an effect on the tinnitus. However, Oplinger discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine, based on the user input, an effect on the tinnitus ([0106] the medical device is configured to receive information indicative of a state of the recipient). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Potts with the controller is further configured to correlate, based on the user input, an effect on the tinnitus as taught by Oplinger. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking signal helped the user fall asleep and stay asleep.
Regarding claim 10, Potts discloses wherein the controller is further configured to change the parameter of the electrical stimulation based on the determined effect ([0060 feedback loop where the stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors, which data is indicative of the state of sleep of the recipient).
Regarding claim 11, Potts discloses the implantable stimulator comprises a cochlear implant (cochlear implant 100) coupled to a lead having a plurality of electrodes (elongate lead assembly 118); and
the cochlear implant is configured to apply the electrical stimulation by way of one or more of the plurality of electrodes ([0030] electrical stimulation signals are delivered to the recipient via elongate electrode assembly 118).
Regarding claim 12, Potts discloses wherein the controller is further configured to direct the cochlear implant to apply additional electrical stimulation (electric field) to represent an audio signal (hearing percept) to the recipient ([0033] allowing the brain to perceive hearing sensations resembling natural hearing sensations).
Regarding claim 13, Potts discloses a system comprising:
a cochlear implant (cochlear implant 100) configured to be implanted within a recipient [0021], the cochlear implant coupled to a lead having a plurality of electrodes ([0029] elongate electrode assembly 118) configured to:
apply electrical stimulation configured to treat tinnitus within the recipient ([0030] electrical stimulation signals are delivered to the recipient via elongate electrode assembly 118), and
apply additional electrical stimulation (electric field) configured to represent an audio signal to the recipient ([0033] allowing the brain to perceive hearing sensations resembling natural hearing sensations)
an implantable sensor (electrodes) configured to be implanted within the recipient and output first sensor data representative of a first property associated with the recipient ([0054] EEG system utilizes electrodes in any combination to implement EEG monitoring of the recipient);
an external sensor (microphone) configured to be external to the recipient and output second sensor data representative of a second property associated with the recipient ([0055] separate device (690) can include a microphone to record the sounds); and
a controller (processor of cochlear implant) communicatively coupled to the cochlear implant, the implantable sensor and the external sensor ([0055] is the processor of the cochlear implant or other prostheses, whether implanted or external, that is utilized to execute the analysis), the controller configured to:
direct the implantable stimulator to apply the electrical stimulation (Figure 4: step 420) to treat the tinnitus within the recipient [0051];
receive the first (EEG) and second (microphone) sensor data ([0060] the implant or other device monitors the EEG, and/or microphone for signs of wakefulness), and
control a parameter of the electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient ([0060] a continuous or periodic feedback loop where the stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors).
Examiner acknowledges that while Potts discloses delivering electrical stimulation [0030], Potts fails to explicitly disclose a controller configured to: direct the implantable stimulator to apply a first electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient. Since the electrical stimulation is generally recited in the claim (no parameters were recited), the electrical stimulation disclosed by Potts reads on the claimed electrical stimulation under the broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in order to further advance prosecution, Examiner notes that Hochmair discloses a controller (processing module) configured to: treat tinnitus by delivering electrical stimulation via a cochlear implant [0008-0009]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prosthesis as taught by Potts to treat tinnitus using electrical stimulation as taught by Hochmair. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of using electrical stimulation to suppress tinnitus (Hochmair, Abstract).
Potts fails to disclose the controller being configured to: receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus,
determine, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and
control, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient.
However, Oplinger discloses a controller (medical device) configured to: receive user input (patient state) indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus ([0106] the medical device is configured to receive information indicative of a state of the recipient).
Viirre discloses a controller (computer/PC workstation) being configured to: direct a stimulator (electronic sound player) to apply a first stimulation (presented sound; Col. 4, ln 52-56);
determine, based on first sensor data (EEG), a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient (Col. 5, ln 3-9: determines if the tinnitus is decreasing), and
control, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient (Col. 5, ln 8-14: when if these desirable changes are not present, the computer slightly alters the sound stimuli).
Searchfield discloses a controller ([0086] audio control device) being configured to: direct a stimulator (Fig 1: sound delivery system 24) to apply a first stimulation ([0077] calibration 62);
determine, based on second sensor data ([0122-0123] HRTFs), and user input ([0096] feedback system) a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient ([0078] assessing the spatial location 16 in 3D auditory space of the sound source location of the tinnitus as perceived by the patient; [0122-123] HRTF is measured using external microphones during the tinnitus location diagnosis step 16; [0096] playback to the patient for their feedback on pitch-matching to their tinnitus), and
control, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient ([0080] sound parameters personalized 18 in view of the patient's tinnitus diagnosis; [0096] Depending on their feedback, the center frequency 167 and/or bandwidth 168 of the stimuli may be adjusted to generate new test sounds to enable a closer pitch-match).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Potts with a controller configured to: receive user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus, determine, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and control, based on the change in perceived tinnitus, a parameter of the stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient as taught by Oplinger, Viirre and Searchfield. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking stimulus disclosed by Potts helped the user fall asleep as well as personalizing tinnitus masking to a user (Searchfield, [0080]) and/or habituating the subject to their tinnitus (Viirre, Col. 5, ln 13-14).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the modified Potts discloses the system of claim 13 and the method of claim 18, but fails to disclose wherein: the controller is further configured to receive user input indicative of an effect of the electrical stimulation on the tinnitus; and the determining the change in perceived tinnitus is further based on the user input. However, Oplinger discloses wherein: the controller (medical device) is further configured to receive user input (patient state) indicative of an effect of the electrical stimulation on the tinnitus ([0106] the medical device is configured to receive information indicative of a state of the recipient). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Potts with the controller is further configured to receive user input indicative of an effect of the electrical stimulation on the tinnitus as taught by Oplinger. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking signal disclosed by Potts helped the user fall asleep and stay asleep.
Searchfield discloses determining the change in perceived tinnitus is further based on the user input ([0096] playback to the patient for their feedback on pitch-matching to their tinnitus). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method as taught by Potts with determining the change in perceived tinnitus is further based on the user input as taught by Searchfield. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of personalizing tinnitus masking to a user (Searchfield, [0080]).
Regarding claim 18, Potts discloses a method comprising: directing, by a controller ([0055] processor of cochlear implant), an implantable stimulator (cochlear implant 100) to apply an electrical stimulation (electrical stimulation signals) to treat tinnitus within a recipient, the implantable stimulator configured to be implanted within the recipient [0030];
receiving, by the controller, first sensor data (EEG) from an implantable sensor (electrodes) configured to be implanted within the recipient, the first sensor data representative of a first property associated with the recipient ([0054] EEG system utilizes electrodes in any combination to implement EEG monitoring of the recipient);
receiving second sensor (audio signals) data from an external sensor (microphone) configured to be external to the recipient, the second sensor data representative of a second property associated with the recipient ([0055] separate device (690) can include a microphone to record the sounds);
and controlling, by the controller, the electrical stimulation applied by the implantable stimulator configured to be implanted within the recipient, the electrical stimulation configured to treat the tinnitus within the recipient ([0060] a continuous or periodic feedback loop where the stimulation is adjusted, including completely stopped, based on the data obtained from the monitors).
Examiner acknowledges that while Potts discloses delivering electrical stimulation [0030], Potts fails to explicitly disclose a controller configured to: direct the implantable stimulator to apply a first electrical stimulation to treat the tinnitus within the recipient. Since the electrical stimulation is generally recited in the claim (no parameters were recited), the electrical stimulation disclosed by Potts reads on the claimed electrical stimulation under the broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in order to further advance prosecution, Examiner notes that Hochmair discloses a controller (processing module) configured to: treat tinnitus by delivering electrical stimulation via a cochlear implant [0008-0009]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prosthesis as taught by Potts to treat tinnitus using electrical stimulation as taught by Hochmair. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of using electrical stimulation to suppress tinnitus (Hochmair, Abstract).
Potts fails to disclose receiving user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus; determining, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and controlling, by the controller and based on the determining the change in perceived tinnitus, the electrical stimulation applied by the implantable stimulator configured to be implanted within the recipient, the electrical stimulation configured to treat the tinnitus within the recipient.
However, Oplinger discloses receiving user input (patient state) indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus ([0106] the medical device is configured to receive information indicative of a state of the recipient).
Viirre discloses directing, by a controller (computer/PC workstation) a stimulator (electronic sound player) to apply a first stimulation (presented sound; Col. 4, ln 52-56);
determining, based on first sensor data (EEG), a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient (Col. 5, ln 3-9: determines if the tinnitus is decreasing), and
controlling, by the controller (computer) and based on the determined change in perceived tinnitus, the stimulation (Col. 5, ln 8-14: when if these desirable changes are not present, the computer slightly alters the sound stimuli).
Searchfield discloses directing, by a controller ([0086] audio control device), a stimulator (Fig 1: sound delivery system 24) to apply a first stimulation ([0077] calibration 62);
determining, based on second sensor data ([0122-0123] HRTFs), and user input ([0096] feedback system) a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient ([0078] assessing the spatial location 16 in 3D auditory space of the sound source location of the tinnitus as perceived by the patient; [0122-123] HRTF is measured using external microphones during the tinnitus location diagnosis step 16; [0096] playback to the patient for their feedback on pitch-matching to their tinnitus), and
controlling, by the controller and based on the determined change in perceived tinnitus, the stimulation ([0080] sound parameters personalized 18 in view of the patient's tinnitus diagnosis; [0096] Depending on their feedback, the center frequency 167 and/or bandwidth 168 of the stimuli may be adjusted to generate new test sounds to enable a closer pitch-match).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Potts with receiving user input indicative of an improvement or a worsening of the tinnitus; determining, based on the first and second sensor data and the user input, a change in perceived tinnitus by the recipient, and controlling, by the controller and based on the determining the change in perceived tinnitus, the stimulation as taught by Oplinger, Viirre and Searchfield. Such a modification would provide the predictable results of determining if the masking stimulus disclosed by Potts helped the user fall asleep as well as personalizing tinnitus masking to a user (Searchfield, [0080]) and/or habituating the subject to their tinnitus (Viirre, Col. 5, ln 13-14).
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 WILLOW GRACE WELCH whose telephone number is (703)756-1596. The examiner can normally be reached Usually M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/WILLOW GRACE WELCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights