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, see pages 6-7, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner withdraws objection to Item 2 of figure 1 and reference number 2 in the specification. Examiner Acknowledges correction to typographical error corrected on page 13 of the specification.
Applicant’s arguments , see page 7, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the interpretation of Claims 5 & 20 and 10 have been fully considered. Examiner Acknowledges the cancelation of claims 10 and 20. Examiner acknowledges the change of the phrase “coupling means for coupling” in claim 5 to “coupler configured to couple”, however due to this change rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), new matter, and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), lack of disclosure, is invoked. The word coupler does not have support in the specification and thus is new matter and constitutes a lack of disclosure for the term.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the objections to claim 16 have been considered and are persuasive. Examiner Acknowledges amendment to claim 16 with respect to the phrase “is or” and withdraws objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been considered and are persuasive . Examiner acknowledges the cancelation of claim 10. Examiner withdraws this rejection at this time.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 3, 4, 6-10, 13, 15, 17 & 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. Examiner acknowledges the cancelation of claims 3, 4, 7-10, 13, & 19. Examiner Withdraws the rejection at this time.
Applicant’s arguments, See pages 8-10, filed 30 December 2025, with respect to rejections made to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, as the cited references does not disclose “the axial spring is connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a first axis which is substantially perpendicular to the skin of the user, wherein the axial spring is configured to apply a negative force on the housing towards the skull” or “the plurality of lateral springs are connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a second axis which is substantially parallel to the skin of the user”. Examiner withdraws the rejection. However, upon further consideration , anew ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ball, Andersson, and Chen. Rejection of all pending dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Page 5 of the specification states "coupling means for coupling" but makes no mention of a coupler. Specification instead makes mention of the coupling means being an anchor on page 13.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, in lieu of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issue above, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be fully ascertained since the specification does not have explicit disclosure for the newly added limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 14-16, 22, & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2014/0275731 hereinafter Andersson in view of US 2018/0035219 hereinafter Gustafsson in further view of US 2020/0169813 hereinafter Chen.
In regards to Claim 1: Ball teaches An electromagnetic vibrator for generating a vibration in order to transmit sound through a bone of a skull of a user to an ear of the user (Andersson, Paragraph 41; Figure 3), comprising:
a housing configured to contain (Andersson, 40 & 44; Figure 4 Items 454 and 452; Figure 2 Item 242):
at least one moving part comprising a seismic mass (Andersson, Paragraph 51; Figure 5 Item 555);
at least one static part wherein the at least one static part comprises at least one coil (Andersson, Paragraph 51; Figure 5 Item 554).
a plurality of lateral springs connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a second axis which is substantially parallel to the skin of the user (Andersson, Paragraph 40; Figure 2 Item 244).
and wherein the at least one moving part is configured to at least partially move within the at least one coil (Figure 2 Items 242, 244, & 250; Paragraph 40)
Andersson does not teach a non-magnetic plate, an axial spring connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a first axis which is substantially perpendicular to the skin of the user, wherein the axial spring is configured to apply a negative force on the housing towards the skull; and wherein the at least one static part is connected with the non-magnetic plate.
Gustafsson teaches an axial spring connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a first axis which is substantially perpendicular to the skin of the user, wherein the axial spring is configured to apply a negative force on the housing towards the skull (Gustafsson, Figure 3A Item 362).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the spring perpendicular to the skin taught in Gustafsson to the device of Andersson, the motivation being to provide an element to stabilize the device.
Chen teaches a non-magnetic plate and wherein the at least one static part is connected with the non-magnetic plate (Chen, Figure 2 Items 2 & 4; Paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the magnetic plate taught in Chen to the device of a modified Andersson, the motivation being to provide an appropriately composed tuning component such that it would improve the sound characteristics of the system.
In regards to Claim 2: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the at least one static part is configured to be fixed to the skull of the user (Andersson Figure 3 Item 355, 341, 356, & 136).
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the electromagnetic vibrator further comprises at least one coupler configured to couple the electromagnetic vibrator to an abutment for connection with an implant for implantation into the bone (101) of the user and/or to the implant for implantation into the bone of the user (Andersson, Paragraph 71).
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the electromagnetic vibrator is coupled to the abutment and/or the implant via the housing (Andersson, Paragraph (Andersson, Paragraph 44; Figure 4 Item 454 & 464).
In regards to Claim 14: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1, and;
an electromagnetic vibrator according to claim 1 (Andersson, Paragraph 71; Figure 6 Item 580); and
an implant for implantation into the bone (Andersson, Paragraph 71; Figure 6 Item 341).
In regards to Claim 15: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1 and 14, and wherein the bone anchored hearing device further comprises:
an abutment for connection with the implant;
wherein the electromagnetic vibrator is fixed to the abutment (Andersson, Paragraph 32 Figure 3 Items 355, 341, & 356).
In regards to Claim 16: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1 and 14, and wherein the bone anchored hearing device is or comprises a hearing aid (Andersson, Paragraph 4).
In regards to Claim 22: Andersson teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the plurality of lateral springs comprise four lateral springs spaced evenly around the at least one moving part.
Gustafsson teaches wherein the plurality of lateral springs comprise four lateral springs spaced evenly around the at least one moving part (Gustafsson, Paragraphs 49 & 53; Figure 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the four equidistant springs taught in Gustafsson to the device of a modified Andersson, the motivation being to provide a suspension system that ensures no excess contact is made by the center portion.
In regards to Claim 23: Ball teaches An electromagnetic vibrator for generating a vibration in order to transmit sound through a bone of a skull of a user to an ear of the user (Andersson, Paragraph 41; Figure 3), comprising:
a housing configured to contain (Andersson, 40 & 44; Figure 4 Items 454 and 452; Figure 2 Item 242):
at least one moving part comprising a seismic mass (Andersson, Paragraph 51; Figure 5 Item 555);
at least one static part wherein the at least one static part comprises at least one coil (Andersson, Paragraph 51; Figure 5 Item 554).
and wherein the at least one moving part is configured to at least partially move within the at least one coil (Figure 2 Items 242, 244, & 250; Paragraph 40)
Andersson does not teach a non-magnetic plate, an axial spring connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a first axis which is substantially perpendicular to the skin of the user, wherein the axial spring is configured to apply a negative force on the housing towards the skull; and wherein the at least one static part is connected with the non-magnetic plate.
Gustafsson teaches an axial spring connected between the at least one moving part and the housing and arranged along a first axis which is substantially perpendicular to the skin of the user, wherein the axial spring is configured to apply a negative force on the housing towards the skull (Gustafsson, Figure 3A Item 362).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the spring perpendicular to the skin taught in Gustafsson to the device of Andersson, the motivation being to provide an element to stabilize the device.
Chen teaches a non-magnetic plate and wherein the at least one static part is connected with the non-magnetic plate (Chen, Figure 2 Items 2 & 4; Paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the magnetic plate taught in Chen to the device of a modified Andersson, the motivation being to provide an appropriately composed tuning component such that it would improve the sound characteristics of the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2014/0275731 hereinafter Andersson in view of US 2018/0035219 hereinafter Gustafsson in further view of US 2020/0169813 hereinafter Chen in furthest view of US 2012/0253104 hereinafter Valckaerts.
In regards to Claim 11: A modified Andersson teaches all of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the electromagnetic vibrator further comprises: a compliant material connected to an outer surface of the housing for protecting the skin of the user.
Valckaerts teaches wherein the electromagnetic vibrator further comprises: a compliant material connected to an outer surface of the housing for protecting the skin of the user (Valckaerts, Claims 13 & 14; Silicone dampens any impact, thus protecting the head).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the silicone coating taught in Valckaerts to the device taught in a modified Andersson, the motivation being to provide a material that simultaneously protects the device and the skull of the user.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2014/0275731 hereinafter Andersson in view of US 2018/0035219 hereinafter Gustafsson in further view of US 2020/0169813 hereinafter Chen in furthest view of US 2014/0012069 hereinafter Ball.
In regards to Claim 12: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the electromagnetic vibrator further comprises: an external part comprising the at least one static part; and- an internal part comprising the at least one moving part, wherein the internal part is located between the skin and the bone of the user.
Ball teaches wherein the electromagnetic vibrator further comprises:- an external part comprising the at least one static part (Ball, Figure 5 Item 500); and an internal part comprising the at least one moving part, wherein the internal part is located between the skin and the bone of the user (Ball, Figure 5 Item 505).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of Ball to the device taught in a modified Andersson, the motivation being to provide a more stable design.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2014/0275731 hereinafter Andersson in view of US 2018/0035219 hereinafter Gustafsson in further view of US 2020/0169813 hereinafter Chen in furthest view of US 2007/0102270 hereinafter Takashima.
In regards to Claim 21: A modified Andersson teaches all of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the axial spring is located centrally with respect to the housing and the at least one moving part.
Takashima teaches wherein the axial spring is located centrally with respect to the housing and the at least one moving part (Takashima, Paragraph 65; Figure 1 Item 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the central location of the spring taught in Takashima to the device of a modified Andersson, the motivation being to provide a stabilization element for the actuator.
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.
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.
/N.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791