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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 12 and 16, lines 3, 3, and 15, respectively, recite “the processor configured” but should read --the processor is configured-- for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moses (US 20070154030 A1) in view of Goldsmith (US 5053040 A).
Regarding claim 1, Moses discloses a hearing aid for insertion through a user's tympanic membrane (Abstract), the hearing aid comprising a housing (Figures 4-5, “22”), comprising: a first portion configured to be disposed on a medial side of a tympanic membrane of a user (Figures 4-5, “36”), a second portion configured to be disposed on a lateral side of the tympanic membrane of the user (Figures 4-5, “34”); and a connecting portion disposed between the first portion and the second
portion and configured to be disposed through the tympanic membrane of the user (Figures 4-5, “33”); and an actuation assembly (Paragraphs [0025]) comprising: at least one mass disposed within the first portion of the housing or the second portion of the housing (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]); and an actuator coupled to the at least one mass (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]), the actuator configured to convert electrical signals into mechanical motion to actuate the mass to modulate the tympanic membrane of the user (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]).
Moses does not disclose the first portion having a conical shape. Goldsmith discloses an otological vent tube (Abstract) for insertion through a user's tympanic membrane (Abstract). The vent tube has a similar structure to that of Moses (Figures 6-9, implant “12”, distal and proximal flange portions “62” and “64”, and tube “66”). Goldsmith further discloses the distal flange portion “62” is in the form of a solid truncated cone having a conical surface “68” in order to facilitate the distention of incision to allow the vent tube to enter the tympanic membrane (Col 6, Lines 57-63). 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 hearing aid as taught by Moses, with the first portion of the hearing aid housing having a conical shape as taught by Goldsmith, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the housing to assist with the installation of the hearing aid (Cols 6-7, Lines 64-4).
Regarding claim 2, Goldsmith disclosed supra the first portion is configured as a dilator to dilate an incision in the tympanic membrane of the user and facilitate passage of the first portion through the tympanic membrane (Goldsmith, Col 6, Lines 57-63).
Regarding claim 3, Moses, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the housing comprises at least one of silicon, a fluoropolymer, polyethylene, stainless steel, or titanium (Paragraph [0025).
Regarding claim 4, Moses, as modified in claim 1, further discloses a processor in communication with the actuator (Paragraph [0040], “electronics package”) and disposed within the first portion or the second portion of the housing (Figure 8, “70”), the processor configured to be wirelessly controlled (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Moses, as disclosed in claim 4, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled to turn the hearing aid on and off (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Moses, as disclosed in claim 4, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled to change an intensity of actuation by the actuator (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Moses, as disclosed in claim 4, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled via RF signals (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Moses, as disclosed in claim 4, further discloses the processor is operably coupled to one or more coils disposed within the first portion or the second portion of the housing for facilitating wireless control of the processor or wireless recharging of the hearing aid (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Moses discloses a hearing aid for insertion through a user's tympanic membrane (Abstract), the hearing aid comprising a housing (Figures 4-5, “22”), comprising: a first portion configured to be disposed on a medial side of a tympanic membrane of a user (Figures 4-5, “36”), a second portion configured to be disposed on a lateral side of the tympanic membrane of the user, the second portion having a cylindrical shape (Figures 4-5, “34”); and an actuation assembly (Paragraphs [0025]) comprising: a first mass disposed within the first portion of the housing (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]); a second mass disposed within the second portion of the housing (Figures 4-5, “26”, Paragraphs [0025]); and an actuator coupled to the first mass (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]), the actuator configured to actuate the first mass to modulate the tympanic membrane of the user (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]).
Moses does not disclose the first portion having a conical shape. Goldsmith discloses an otological vent tube (Abstract) for insertion through a user's tympanic membrane (Abstract). The vent tube has a similar structure to that of Moses (Figures 6-9, implant “12”, distal and proximal flange portions “62” and “64”, and tube “66”). Goldsmith further discloses the distal flange portion “62” is in the form of a solid truncated cone having a conical surface “68” in order to facilitate the distention of incision to allow the vent tube to enter the tympanic membrane (Col 6, Lines 57-63). 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 hearing aid as taught by Moses, with the first portion of the hearing aid housing having a conical shape as taught by Goldsmith, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the housing to assist with the installation of the hearing aid (Cols 6-7, Lines 64-4).
Regarding claim 11, Goldsmith disclosed supra, the first portion is configured as a dilator to dilate an incision in the tympanic membrane of the user and facilitate passage of the first portion through the tympanic membrane (Goldsmith, Col 6, Lines 57-63).
Claim(s) 7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moses (US 20070154030 A1) in view of Goldsmith (US 5053040 A), as applied to claims 1, 4 and 10 above and further in view of Folkmanis (US 9119009 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Moses, as disclosed in claim 4, does not disclose the processor is further configured to provide diagnostic feedback to the user as a response tone. Folkmanis discloses a hearing aid comprising a processor (Col 1, Lines 51-54), wherein the processor is configured to receive an audio control tone from a external device and output a response tone to the user through the hearing aid (Col 3, lines 59-93). As the hearing aid of Moses comprises a processor capable of receiving audio tones, 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 hearing aid as taught by modified Moses, with the processor being configured to provide diagnostic feedback to the user as a response tone as taught by Folkmanis, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring alert sounds that may be outside the frequencies of a hearing aid are detectable by a user (Col 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 12, Moses, as modified in claim 10, further discloses a processor in communication with the actuator (Paragraph [0040], “electronics package”) and disposed within the first portion or the second portion of the housing (Figure 8, “70”), the process is the processor configured to be wirelessly controlled (Paragraph [0041]). Modified Moses does not disclose the processor is further configured to provide diagnostic feedback. Folkmanis discloses a hearing aid comprising a processor (Col 1, Lines 51-54), wherein the processor is configured to receive an audio control tone from an external device and output a response tone to the user through the hearing aid (Col 3, lines 59-93). As the hearing aid of Moses comprises a processor capable of receiving audio tones, 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 hearing aid as taught by modified Moses, with the processor being configured to provide diagnostic feedback to the user as a response tone as taught by Folkmanis, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring alert sounds that may be outside the frequencies of a hearing aid are detectable by a user (Folkmanis, Col 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 13, Moses, as modified in claim 12, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled to turn the hearing aid on and off (Moses, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Moses, as modified in claim 12, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled to change an intensity of actuation by the actuator (Moses, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Moses, as modified in claim 12, further discloses the processor is operably coupled to one or more coils disposed within the first portion or the second portion of the housing for facilitating wireless control of the processor or wireless recharging of the hearing aid (Paragraph [0041]).
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moses (US 20070154030 A1) in view of Folkmanis (US 9119009 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Regarding claim 1, Moses discloses a hearing aid for insertion through a user's tympanic membrane (Abstract), the hearing aid comprising a housing (Figures 4-5, “22”), comprising: a first portion configured to be disposed on a medial side of a tympanic membrane of a user (Figures 4-5, “36”), a second portion configured to be disposed on a lateral side of the tympanic membrane of the user (Figures 4-5, “34”); an actuation assembly (Paragraphs [0025]) comprising: at least one mass disposed within the first portion of the housing or the second portion of the housing (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]); and an actuator coupled to the at least one mass (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]), the actuator configured to actuate the mass to modulate the tympanic membrane of the user (Figures 4-5, “28”, Paragraphs [0025]); and a processor in communication with the actuator (Paragraph [0040], “electronics package”) and disposed within the first portion or the second portion of the housing (Figure 8, “70”), the processor configured to be wirelessly controlled (Paragraph [0041]).
Moses does not disclose the processor configured to provide diagnostic feedback to the user, wherein the diagnostic feedback is provided as one or more audible response tones via modulation of the tympanic membrane of the user by the actuator and the at least one mass. Folkmanis discloses a hearing aid comprising a processor (Col 1, Lines 51-54), wherein the processor is configured to receive an audio control tone from an external device and output an audible response tone to the user through the hearing aid (Col 3, lines 59-93). As the hearing aid of Moses comprises a processor capable of receiving audio tones and modulating the tympanic membrane of the user by the actuator and the at least one mass, 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 hearing aid as taught by modified Moses, with the processor being configured to provide diagnostic feedback to the user as a response tone as taught by Folkmanis, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring alert sounds that may be outside the frequencies of a hearing aid are detectable by a user (Col 3, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 17, Moses, as modified in claim 16, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled to turn the hearing aid on and off (Moses, Paragraph [0041]) and change an intensity of actuation by the actuator (Moses, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Folkmanis previously disclosed the hearing aid comprises a processor configured to receive a wireless audio signal and be in response actuate the hearing aid (Folkmanis, Col 3, lines 59-93).
Regarding claim 19, Moses, as disclosed in claim 17, further discloses the processor is configured to be wirelessly controlled via transmission of one or more acoustic (Folkmanis, Col 3, lines 59-93) or RF signals (Paragraph [0041]) to the processor.
Regarding claim 20, Moses, as modified in claim 16, further discloses the processor is operably coupled to one or more coils disposed within the first portion or the second portion of the housing for facilitating wireless control of the processor or wireless recharging of the hearing aid (Moses, Paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791