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 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 8
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Andreason does not disclose or suggest “at least three receptacles, each of the at least three receptacles comprising two tines, the two tines configured to inhibit a relative rotation between the first portion and the second portion about the center axis.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner maintains that the three receptacles can be seen in at least Figs. 2 and 3 (see pin receivers 46 in the Figures and at least ¶ 91). Examiner maintains that the receptacles each comprise two tines (Fig. 10 discloses tines 124 in an embodiment of a pin receiver. These electrical receiver ends create an electrical contact area between the pin and the pin receivers). The limitation “the tines are configured to inhibit a relative rotation between the first portion and the second portion about the center axis” is functional language. The tines as taught by Andreason create an electrical contact and a physical contact between the protrusion and the receptacle as discussed above. By doing so, the tines would necessarily inhibit relative rotation between the first portion and the second portion about the center axis as they work together with the other tines on the other receptacles. Furthermore, Andreason teaches the electrical housings interlock when they are joined together (e.g. ¶ 97).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that Figs. 3 and 4 do not suggest the tines. However, the tines were discussed in claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Figs. 3 and 4 in combination with the tines taught in Fig. 10 teach the two tines are positioned along a line substantially tangent to a circle centered on the center axis.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that Fig. 8 fails to teach the interlock portions as claimed. However, ¶ 97 of Andreason teaches that the electrical housings may interlock through means of interference fitting.
Claims 10, 11 and 13 – 15
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Andreason does not disclose or suggest “at least three electrically conductive forks…, each fork having a pair of substantially parallel prongs… spaced apart from one another along a line substantially perpendicular to the axis and substantially perpendicular to a direction extending from the axis of the fork.” Examiner disagrees. The conductive forks are just another term for the receptacles of claim 1. Similarly the prongs are just another term for the tines of claim 1. The reasoning is the same as claim 1 above where the conductive forks and prongs can be found in Fig. 10. Similarly the location of the prongs can be seen in Fig. 10.
Claims 9 and 16
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Applicant argues that Leigh does not disclose or render obvious the features of claims 1 and 10 that are missing from Andreason. As discussed above, Andreason reads on claims 1 and 10.
Claims 17 – 21
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that Andreason in view of Leigh does not teach “in response to an applied torque between the first and second mating portions, using each fork to block movement of the corresponding pin.” Applicant further argues that Leigh is nonanalogous art. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Leigh solves a similar problem of resisting torque.
It is noted that the claim 16 is an apparatus claim. Therefore the limitations are functionally recited. The three forks as described in claims 10 and 14 would necessarily apply a counterforce against the at least three pins when an externally applied torque is applied (see Fig. 10 and discussion above). Furthermore, the method claims do not active recite the method step of applying a torque. Therefore, forks which would necessarily block movement of the corresponding pins would read on the claims. The forks of Andreason would block such a movement since they create physical contact with the pins.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 8, 10, 11, and 13 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andreason et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0145443 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Andreason discloses an apparatus comprising: a first portion comprising at least three protrusions in electrical communication with first circuitry, each of the at least three protrusions (e.g. 38) displaced from and extending substantially parallel to a center axis, at least two of the at least three protrusions displaced from the center axis by distances that are substantially different from one another (e.g. Figs. 2-3); and a second portion configured to be repeatedly mechanically coupled to and decoupled from the first portion, the second portion comprising at least three receptacles (e.g. 46) in electrical communication with second circuitry, each of the at least three receptacles comprising two tines (e.g. 124 in Fig. 10) configured to be in mechanical and electrical communication with a corresponding protrusion of the at least three protrusions upon insertion of the corresponding protrusion into a region at least partially bounded by the two tines (e.g. Fig. 10), the two tines displaced from and extending substantially parallel to the center axis and configured to inhibit a relative rotation between the first portion and the second portion about the center axis (e.g. Figs. 2, 3, 10).
Regarding claim 2, Andreason discloses the first portion comprises a socket and the second portion comprises a plug (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Andreason discloses wherein each protrusion of the at least three protrusions has a width less than 1 millimeter in a plane substantially perpendicular to the center axis and is displaced from the center axis by a distance less than 2 millimeters, the at least three protrusions are separated from one another by a center-to-center distance less than or equal to 2 millimeters (e.g. Figs. 4, 5, ¶ 125-126), and wherein each receptacle of the at least three receptacles has a width less than 2 millimeters in the plane substantially perpendicular to the center axis (e.g. Fig. 4, 5, 8).
Regarding claim 6, Andreason discloses the two tines are positioned along a line substantially tangent to a circle centered on the center axis and having a radius substantially equal to a corresponding distance of the corresponding protrusion from the center axis (e.g.. Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 7, Andreason discloses at least two of the at least three protrusions are displaced from the center axis by distances that are substantially equal to one another (e.g. ¶ 81).
Regarding claim 8, Andreason discloses the first portion comprises at least one first interlock portion and the second portion comprises at least one second interlock portion configured to engage with and disengage from the at least one first interlock portion, the at least one first interlock portion and the at least one second interlock portion configured to inhibit the relative rotation between the first portion and the second portion about the center axis (e.g. Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Andreason discloses at least three electrically conductive forks spaced from and distributed about an axis, each fork of the at least three forks having a pair of substantially parallel prongs, the prongs of the pair of prongs extending substantially parallel to the axis and spaced from one another along a line substantially perpendicular to the axis and substantially perpendicular to a direction extending from the axis to the fork, at least two of the at least three electrically conductive forks displaced from the axis by distances that are substantially different from one another (e.g. Figs. 2, 3, 9, 10; as described above).
Regarding claim 11, Andreason discloses each fork of the at least three forks is substantially identical to one another (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Andreason discloses each fork of the at least three forks has a width along the line less than 2 millimeters, and the prongs are spaced from one another along the line by a center-to-center distance less than or equal to 1 millimeter (e.g. ¶ 125-126).
Regarding claim 14, Andreason discloses at least three electrically conductive pins spaced from and distributed about the axis and extending substantially parallel to the axis, the at least three pins configured to repeatedly mechanically and electrically engage with and disengage from the at least three forks (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Andreason discloses each pin of the at least three pins has a width less than 1 millimeter in a plane substantially perpendicular to the axis and is displaced from the axis by a distance less than 2 millimeters, the at least three pins separated from one another by a center-to-center distance less than or equal to 2 millimeters (e.g. Fig. 4, 5, 8, and ¶ 125-126).
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.
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) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreason et al.
Regarding claim 5, Andreason discloses the claimed invention, but doesn’t specifically recite that the two tines are spring-loaded and configured to clasp the corresponding protrusion. However, this would have been an obvious design choice since springs are well known in the art, and since the tines are used for the same purpose to hold the protrusions in place.
Regarding claim 12, Andreason teaches it is known to use copper alloys and gold in the circuitry (e.g. ¶ 118 and 184), but never specifically recites the prongs comprise hardened BeCu alloy coated with Au. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prongs as taught by Andreason with the prongs comprising hardened BeCu alloy coated with Au , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233].
Claim(s) 9 and 16 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreason et al. in view of Leigh et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0239474 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Andreason discloses the claimed invention except for the apparatus is an external portion of an acoustic prosthesis system comprising: a sound processing unit comprising the first circuitry; and an electrical cable configured to be in electrical communication with the second circuitry.
Leigh teaches it is known to use a similar apparatus in an acoustic prosthesis as claimed (e.g. ABSTRACT and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Andreason with the acoustic prosthesis as taught by Leigh, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a modification would provide the predictable results of securely coupling circuitry to an implant.
Regarding claims 16 – 21, Andreason discloses the claimed invention, but does not specifically recite that the mating is done to resist an applied torque between the portions.
Leigh teaches it is known to use similar mating portions in order to resist torque applied to the device (e.g. ¶ 34-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Andreason with the torque resistant mating portion as taught by Leigh, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a modification would provide the predictable results of securely coupling circuitry to the device.
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 JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights