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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-27, 29, 31, and 32 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Objections
Specification
Claim 13 is objected to, because the phrase “at which” is still confusing. Does Applicant mean “when” (or “that” receives the power signals from the external device)? Rather, the term “at which” is used to describe a level in the specification. Appropriate clarification/correction is requested.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-27, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,177,690 to Woods et al., alone.
With respect to Claim 1, Woods teaches a method (FIG. 4A-F), comprising: monitoring a health of at least one implantable rechargeable battery of an implantable component configured to be implanted in a recipient (Abstract; col 4, ln 5-10), wherein the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is configured to selectively power electronics of the implantable component (Abstract); electrically disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery such that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery can no longer be charged (col 23, ln 40-60); and while the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is disconnected, powering the electronics of the implantable component using power signals received from an external device (col 1, ln 52-57; col 3, ln 14-15 (“. . . external controllers or power sources”); FIGS. 4A-F).
Woods teaches an equivalent system operable to perform the method recited in the instant invention, but does not use the same verbiage, such as “health,” etc., however, the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitations verbatim. Woods teaches a different set of thresholds collectively operable to perform monitoring, recharging, and selective temporary and/or permanent disconnecting of an internal battery, as recited. For example, phrases such as “a first prescribed level” is equivalent to a threshold. The steps are a simple substitute for the recited components and methods. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Woods to include the specified verbiage and specific steps recited in the instant invention.
With respect to Claim 2, Woods teaches wherein monitoring the health of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery comprises: obtaining battery health information from the at least one implantable rechargeable battery; and determining, based on the battery health information, that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life (Abstract).
With respect to Claim 3, Woods teaches wherein that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life comprises: determining that a cycle-life of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is below a selected threshold (col 22, ln 19-21; col 33, ln 37-45; col 36, ln 3-8; col 29, ln 19, 54-59; col 42, ln 43-58, “a first prescribed level”).
With respect to Claim 4, Woods teaches wherein determining that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life comprises: determining that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has experienced a fault condition making continued operation of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery unsafe for the recipient (col 42, ln 18-38).
With respect to Claim 5, Woods teaches wherein determining that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life comprises: determining that a capacity of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is below a predetermined threshold (col 15, ln 52-55; col 42, ln 18-38).
With respect to Claim 6, Woods teaches wherein determining that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life comprises: determining that a charge-time to run-time ratio of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is above a predetermined threshold (col 3, ln 29-37).
With respect to Claim 7, Woods teaches wherein disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery from the electronics comprises: permanently disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery from the electronics (col 42, ln 18-38).
With respect to Claim 8, Woods teaches wherein disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery comprises: temporarily disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery (col 23, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 9, Woods teaches reconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery such that at least one implantable rechargeable battery is able to provide power to the electronics (col 42, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 10, Woods teaches wherein disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery comprises: disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery in response to receipt of a control signal from an external device (col 42, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 11, Woods teaches wherein disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery comprises: forming a physical disconnection between the at least one implantable rechargeable battery and a circuit node at which the power signals are received from the external device (col 42, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 12, Woods teaches wherein disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery further comprises: forming a physical disconnection between the at least one implantable rechargeable battery and the electronics (col 42, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 13, Woods teaches wherein disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery comprises: placing one or more high impedance circuit components between the at least one implantable rechargeable battery and a circuit node at which the power signals are received from the external device (col 18, ln 10-28; col 42, ln 28-35).
With respect to Claim 14, Woods teaches while the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is disconnected, continuing to monitor a health of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery (col 23, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 15, Woods teaches an implantable component configured to be implanted in a recipient (Abstract), comprising: an inductive coil configured to receive power signals from an external device (FIG. 4A); at least one implantable rechargeable battery configured to be charged using power signals received at the inductive coil from the external device (FIG. 4A); implant electronics configured to be powered by power received from the at least one implantable rechargeable battery, and/or power signals received from the external device (FIG. 4A); and a battery disconnection module configured to selectively disconnect the at least one implantable rechargeable battery from the implant electronics and the inductive coil, wherein when the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is disconnected, the implant electronics are only powered using power signals received from the external device (FIG. 4A; col 23, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 16, Woods teaches wherein the battery disconnection module is configured to: selectively disconnect the at least one implantable rechargeable battery such that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is unable to receive a current from the inductive coil that is sufficient to charge the at least one implantable rechargeable battery (col 23, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 17, Woods teaches wherein the battery disconnection module comprises one or more switch modules configured to form a physical disconnection between the at least one implantable rechargeable battery and the inductive coil and between the least one implantable rechargeable battery and the implant electronics (FIG. 4A, 188; col 16, ln 20-30).
With respect to Claim 18, Woods teaches wherein the one or more switch modules are configured to place one or more high impedance circuit components between the at least one implantable rechargeable battery and the inductive coil (FIG. 4A, 188; col 16, ln 20-30).
With respect to Claim 19, Woods teaches wherein the battery disconnection module is configured to: obtain battery health information from the at least one implantable rechargeable battery; and monitor a health of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery based on the battery health information (Abstract; col 4, ln 5-10).
With respect to Claim 20, Woods teaches wherein the battery disconnection module is configured to: automatically disconnect the at least one implantable rechargeable battery from the inductive coil and the implant electronics based on the health of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery (col 23, ln 43-58).
With respect to Claim 21, Woods teaches wherein the battery disconnection module is configured to: wirelessly send battery status data indicating the health of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery to an external computing device (col 4, ln 5-15).
With respect to Claim 22, Woods teaches wherein the battery disconnection module comprises a controller configured to: determine, based on the battery health information, that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life (Abstract); and permanently disconnect the at least one implantable rechargeable battery from the inductive coil and implant electronics (col 7, ln 1-5; col 24, ln 1-5).
With respect to Claim 23, Woods teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life when a cycle-life of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is below a selected threshold (col 22, ln 19-21; col 33, ln 37-45; col 36, ln 3-8; col 29, ln 19, 54-59; col 42, ln 43-58, “a first prescribed level”).
With respect to Claim 24, Woods teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life when the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has experienced a fault condition making continued operation of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery unsafe for the recipient (col 42, ln 18-38).
With respect to Claim 25, Woods teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life when a capacity of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is below a predetermined threshold (col 15, ln 52-55; col 42, ln 18-38).
With respect to Claim 26, Woods teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life when a charge-time to run-time ratio of the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is above a predetermined threshold (col 3, ln 29-37).
With respect to Claim 27, Woods teaches wherein the controller is configured to permanently disconnect the at least one implantable rechargeable battery only in response to receipt of a control signal from an external computing device (col 24, ln 1-5; col 42, ln 18-38).
With respect to Claim 29, Woods teaches a method, comprising: generating battery status data associated with at least one implantable rechargeable battery of an implantable component configured to be implanted in a recipient; sending the battery status data to an external computing device; receiving one or more control signals from the external computing device indicating that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery should be disconnected; and in response to receipt of the one or more control signals, electrically disconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery such that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery can no longer be charged (col 23, 40-60; col 24, ln 1-5; FIG. 4A-F), and powering electronics of the implantable component using power signals received from an external device (col 1, ln 52-57).
With respect to Claim 31, Woods teaches wherein the at least one implantable rechargeable battery is temporarily disconnected, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving at least one control signal from the external computing device indicating that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery should be reconnected; and in response to receipt of the at least one control signal, electrically reconnecting the at least one implantable rechargeable battery such that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery can be charged (col 23, 40-67).
With respect to Claim 32, Woods teaches wherein generating battery status data associated with at least one implantable rechargeable battery comprises: obtaining battery health information from the at least one implantable rechargeable battery; and determining, based on the battery health information, that the at least one implantable rechargeable battery has reached an end-of-life (Abstract; col 2, ln 11-13; col 36, ln 4-6).
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 5/11/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where rejections/objections are maintained. It is initially noted that the claims are generally unamended as to scope. Applicant primarily challenges Woods’ teaching of powering the implantation device via an external power source, when the battery is disconnected; but Woods expressly teaches disconnecting the battery from the main circuit and shutting it down, and also powering an implantable devices using external sources (e.g., an induction coil). Combined its teachings would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art to use an external source to provide power signals, when the battery is disconnected. Applicant argues that Woods teaches away from the instant invention at col 23; however, Woods, at col 23 16-19, states “Advantageously, in one embodiment, . . .” which makes clear that the teachings Applicant cites to are but one embodiment of the disclosure. The background, which is a part of every embodiment, expressly contemplates externally powered implants as part of the prior art. As per Claim 15, Woods teaches a disconnect module at col 23, ln 47, under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights