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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed May 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-27 are pending in the application. Claims 25-27 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-7, 11-18, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Zachar (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0030375 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Herrmann teaches an apparatus (hearing prosthesis, Figs. 1-4, Para. [0032]) for affecting pressure waves within at least part of or in proximity to an ear of a user (the hearing prosthesis has ultrasound device 2 for affecting pressure waves within ear of user, Figs. 1-4, Para. [0032]), at least part of the apparatus being configured to be wearable within at least part of or in proximity to said ear of said user (hearing prosthesis within the ear, Figs. 1-4),
the apparatus comprises an array of ultrasound emitters (ultrasound array 8, Figs. 1, 2, and 4, Para. [0036]) and processor means (processor 5, Figs. 1 and 4, Paras. [0034] and [0041]) operative in response to an input signal of an input means (microphone 1, Figs. 1 and 4, Paras. [0034] and [0041]) to control an output of the array of ultrasound emitters (acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals used to generate control signals for an ultrasonic driver 7, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]),
wherein the array of ultrasound emitters is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves focused to directly interfere at a site of focus (two or more ultrasonic beams 3 can be focused [focus 11] on a point P in a region of the inner ear I, Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]) and resulting proximal pressure effect at that site of focus, being at or within, or in proximity to the ear, ear-drum and/or ear-canal of said user (superposition of several ultrasonic fields 3 serves to form a focus 11 in the cochlea, Fig. 7, Para. [0038]).
Herrmann fails to explicitly teach wherein the array of ultrasound emitters is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves focused to directly interfere at a site of focus to provide an ultrasound standing wave.
However, Zachar teaches wherein the array of ultrasound emitters (ultrasound transducer 110 with emitter array 112, Fig. 5) is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves focused to directly interfere at a site of focus to provide an ultrasound standing wave (focusing is obtained when all signals of the set {f(n)} arrive in-phase to a particular focus peak point 111 at which they have maximum constructive interference [ultrasound standing wave], Fig. 5, Para. [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann) to include the array of ultrasound emitters generating interfering ultrasound outputs to provide an ultrasound standing wave (as taught by Zachar). Doing so, focus point can be adjusted to direct energy to precise target area creating strong localized acoustic radiation.
Regarding Claim 2, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the ultrasound outputs focus and transmit, ultrasound towards that site of focus being one or more of the group comprising:
a) at least part of:
ii) an inner and/or middle ear structure or space(s) to affect movement and/or vibration of at least part of an inner and/or middle ear structure or space(s) (Herrmann, ultrasound output is transmitted towards a region of the inner ear, Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 3, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the ultrasound outputs generate a fluctuating pressure wave of variable frequency and/or amplitude configured to replicate vibration of an ear-drum commensurate with vibrations expected in a normal ear in response to sound (Herrmann, ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of focused, pulsed ultrasonic beams of varying frequencies, Para. [0032] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the ultrasound outputs generate:
a) focused patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere at one or more points, areas, and/or two- or three-dimensional planes to affect a change in pressure at or close to any of the points, areas or planes (Herrmann, two or more ultrasonic beams 3 can be focused [focus 11] on a point P in a region of the inner ear I, Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]);
b) focused patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere at a position or area, in or adjacent to a site or position within the ear-canal, the external auditory meatus, and/or the ear-canal wall and/or surrounding bone (Herrmann, two or more ultrasonic beams 3 can be focused [focus 11] on a point P in a region of the inner ear I, Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]);
c) a constant or fluctuating pressure wave of constant or varying frequency and/or amplitude configured to provide interference to reduce or obstruct the effects of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic (Herrmann, ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of focused, pulsed ultrasonic beams of varying frequencies, Para. [0032] and [0034]; generated ultrasound provide interference produced by superposition of the beams, Fig. 7, Para. [0038]; noise resulting from unwanted stimulation or inhibition of nearby nerve fibers is prevented, Para. [0022]).
d) a constant pressure wave configured to act as an acoustic filter or acoustic grate, to reduce or prevent transmission of specific frequencies and/or amplitudes of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic; and/or
e) patterns of ultrasound waves to provide interference to reduce or obstruct the effects of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic, or modify an adverse pressure wave to remove its adverse effect(s) (Herrmann, ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of focused, pulsed ultrasonic beams of varying frequencies, Para. [0032] and [0034]; generated ultrasound provide interference produced by superposition of the beams, Fig. 7, Para. [0038]; noise resulting from unwanted stimulation or inhibition of nearby nerve fibers is prevented, Para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the input means comprises:
a control signal (Herrmann, acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals to generate control signals, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]);
a sound input (Herrmann, microphone 1 receives sound input, Figs. 1 and 4, Paras. [0032] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 6, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the input signal to the processor means is analysed to determine frequencies and corresponding amplitudes of the sound input and/or the detected sound (Herrmann, acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals. The frequency- and time-resolved amplitudes of the ultrasonic beams are encoded on multiple channels, so that multichannel control signals for an ultrasonic driver 7 of an ultrasound device 2 are generated, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]), and the processor means provides an output signal for the emitters which is configured to affect:
an ear-drum complex consistent with said user hearing the sound input or the detected sound (Herrmann, the ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of ultrasonic beams 3 which stimulate regions of nerves in the cochlea or regions of the auditory pathway, Figs. 1-4, Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 7, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the processor means is configured to provide an output signal to the ultrasound emitters for providing ultrasound of predetermined amplitude, frequency, duration, modulation, harmonics, timing, and/or interference pattern (Herrmann, processor 5 outputs signals to the ultrasonic driver 7 of ultrasonic device 2 providing frequency- and time-resolved amplitudes of the ultrasonic beams encoded on multiple channels, Para. [0034]; duration of the irradiation and the repetition of the stimulation/blocking that is produced is generated in the ultrasonic driver 7 for each individual element or for the group of arrays by the encoded control signals from the speech processor 5, Para. [0036]).
Regarding Claim 11, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1, The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, it is similarly rejected as Claim 2. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the ultrasound outputs transmit to at least part of the ear-drum complex, inner or middle ear, ear-canal or other structure or space, or to at least part of the cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic to provide a perception of sound to the user (Herrmann, ultrasound output is transmitted towards a region of the inner ear, Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14, Herrmann in view of Zachar teaches wherein the ultrasound outputs transmit to at least part of the ear canal, the region adjacent the outer ear of the user, or the region adjacent, or radially inwards of, the associated apparatus (Herrmann, two or more ultrasonic beams 3 can be focused [focus 11] on a point P in a region of the inner ear I, Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]) to reduce or obstruct the effects of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic (Herrmann, generated ultrasound provide interference produced by superposition of the beams, Fig. 7, Para. [0038]; noise resulting from unwanted stimulation or inhibition of nearby nerve fibers is prevented, Para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 15, it is similarly rejected as Claim 3. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 16, it is similarly rejected as Claim 4. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 17, it is similarly rejected as Claim 6. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 18, it is similarly rejected as Claim 9. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 25, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1, The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 26, it is similarly rejected as Claim 3, The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 27, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1, The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
4. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Zachar (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0030375 A1), and further in view of Hyde et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0118035 A1, hereinafter "Hyde").
Regarding Claim 8, Herrmann in view of Zachar teach wherein the processor means is configured to additionally analyse one or more inputs from an ultrasound transducer/receiver, a laser and/or light emitter/receiver, microphone, proximity sensor, a time of flight sensor, an imager, and/or an ultrasound transducer/receiver, or combination thereof (Herrmann, acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals. The frequency- and time-resolved amplitudes of the ultrasonic beams are encoded on multiple channels, so that multichannel control signals for an ultrasonic driver 7 of an ultrasound device 2 are generated, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]), and modify the output signal (Herrmann, ultrasound source 2 generates reference beams 3' focused on reference points R. The reference beams 3' are used to detect changes in position of the hearing aid or ultrasound device 2 so as to perform a correction of the other ultrasonic beams 3, Para. [0037]).
Herrmann in view of Zachar fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor means is configured to additionally analyse one or more inputs from an ultrasound transducer/receiver, a laser and/or light emitter/receiver, microphone, proximity sensor, a time of flight sensor, an imager, and/or an ultrasound transducer/receiver, or combination thereof, which detect movement and/or vibration of any ear structure, or a movement in close proximity to said ear, and, thereby, modify the output signal.
However, Hyde teaches detect movement and/or vibration of any ear structure, or a movement in close proximity to said ear (vibration sensor 150 detects vibrational noise sound waves near a listener's ear, Fig. 1, Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Zachar) to include detecting movement and/or vibration of any ear structure, or a movement in close proximity to said ear (as taught by Hyde). Doing so will ensure and improve clarity and/or intelligibility or audio perception.
5. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Zachar (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0030375 A1), and further in view of Kappus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0057529 A1, hereinafter "Kappus").
Regarding Claim 9, Herrmann in view of Zachar fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor means is configured to compare a detected response of one or more ear structures to the ultrasound outputs with an expected response to sound, and is configured to modify the ultrasound outputs to improve replication of the sound.
However, Kappus teaches wherein the processor means is configured to compare a detected response of one or more ear structures to the ultrasound outputs with an expected response to sound, and is configured to modify the ultrasound outputs to improve replication of the sound (a hearing response profile of a listener to an audio modulated ultrasonic carrier signal can be determined, and audio content can be adjusted to at least partially compensate for the listener's hearing response profile, Para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Zachar) to include comparing detected response to ultrasound output (as taught by Kappus). Doing so can improve clarity and/or intelligibility or audio perception (Kappus Para. [0079]).
6. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Zachar (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0030375 A1), and further in view of Cowan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0293913 A1, hereinafter "Cowan").
Regarding Claim 10, Herrmann in view of Zachar fail to explicitly teach further comprising a cochlear apparatus.
However, Cowan teaches a cochlear apparatus (cochlear apparatus 32, 34, Figs. 3b and 3c, Paras. [0036] and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Zachar) to include the cochlear apparatus (as taught by Cowan). Doing so will enable a much more robust utilization of site and region specific stimulation (Cowan Para. [0031]).
7. Claim(s) 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0293913 A1, hereinafter "Cowan") in view of Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Cowan teaches a cochlear apparatus, for implantation within at least part of a cochlear canal of a user or for replacement of a cochlea of a user (cochlear implant system (CIS) is shown in Figs. 3b, 3c, 4a, and 4b, Paras. [0036]-[0040]), the cochlear apparatus comprising:
one or more regions, being one or more sites of focus, adapted to receive ultrasound output of an ultrasound emitter (multiple receiver-stimulators consisting of receiver 32 and electrodes 34 are placed within multiple regions of the cochlea to receive ultrasound from controller-transmitter transducer 30, Figs. 3b and 3c, Paras. [0031], [0036] and [0037]).
Cowan fails to explicitly teach one or more regions, being one or more sites of focus, adapted to receive a focused ultrasound output of an ultrasound emitter,
an earphone, fully-locatable in an ear-canal of said user, the earphone comprising the ultrasound emitter directed towards an ear-drum of said user, the ultrasound emitter being configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves focused to directly interfere in the one or more regions of the cochlear apparatus providing proximal pressure effects so as to generate one or more electrical signals for providing a perception of sound to said user.
However, Herrmann teaches one or more regions, being one or more sites of focus, adapted to receive a focused ultrasound output of an ultrasound emitter (two or more ultrasonic beams 3 can be focused [focus 11] on a point P in a region of the inner ear I, Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]),
an earphone, fully-locatable in an ear-canal of said user (earphone 2 fully located in ear canal, Fig. 4, Paras. [0036] and [0037]), the earphone comprising the ultrasound emitter directed towards an ear-drum of said user (ultrasound emitter 8 is directed towards ear drum, Fig. 4), the ultrasound emitter being configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves focused to directly interfere in the one or more regions of the cochlear apparatus (two or more ultrasonic beams 3 can be focused [focus 11] on a point P in a region of the inner ear I, Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]) providing proximal pressure effects so as to generate one or more electrical signals for providing a perception of sound to said user (superposition of several ultrasonic fields 3 serves to form a focus 11 in the cochlea, Fig. 7, Para. [0038]; ultrasonic beams 3 are dynamically focused on different spatially distributed points P as a function of the electrical signals generated by the acoustic converter 1, thereby stimulating nerves, Para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Cowan) to include the sites of focus to receive focused ultrasound, an earphone with ultrasound emitter located in the ear canal, and configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves (as taught by Herrmann). Doing so, the apparatus can be adapted optimally and individually to the degree of hearing loss (Herrmann Para. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cowan in view of Herrmann teach wherein the cochlear apparatus comprises means for stimulating auditory nerve cells of the inner ear (Cowan, receiver-stimulator device used to electrically stimulate cochlear nerves, Para. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 21, Cowan in view of Herrmann teach wherein the one or more regions comprise piezoelectric material capable of receiving said ultrasound output and generating one or more electrical signals (Cowan, receiver-stimulator 42 contains ultrasound transducer 20 made of piezoelectric material which receives ultrasound output and generates electrical signals, Fig. 4b, Para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 22, Cowan in view of Herrmann teach wherein the one or more regions are spatially located along at least part of the cochlear apparatus such that different regions are responsive to different frequencies, amplitudes and/or modulation of said ultrasound output (Cowan, multiple receiver-stimulators can receive transmitted acoustic energy independently by responding only to acoustic energy of a specific character (i.e., of a certain frequency, amplitude, or by other modulation or encoding of the acoustic waveform) intended to energize only that specific region, Para. [0031]).
Regarding Claim 23, Cowan in view of Herrmann teach wherein the cochlear apparatus comprises a receiving surface for propagating received sound, ultrasound or electromagnetic signals to the cochlear apparatus (Cowan, receiver 32, Figs. 3b and 3c, Paras. [0036] and [0037]).
Regarding Claim 24, Cowan in view of Herrmann teach wherein the ultrasound emitter comprises an array of interfering ultrasound emitters (Herrmann, ultrasound array 8 which can provide interfering ultrasound beams, Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 7, Para. [0036] and [0038]).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remark pages 11-13, filed May 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris and Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections are made in view of amended Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar and amended Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Herrmann.
Herrmann teaches the features of the focused ultrasound waves at a site of focus and the resulting pressure effect at the site of focus (Figs. 1 and 7, Para. [0038]).
Zachar teaches the features of array of ultrasound emitters configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs focused at a site to provide ultrasound standing waves (Fig. 5, Para. [0141]).
The rejections of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar are maintained.
The rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Herrmann is maintained.
Dependent Claims 2-7, and 12-18 are rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar.
The rejections of Claims 2-7, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar are maintained.
Dependent Claim 8 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar, and further in view of Hyde.
The rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar, and further in view of Hyde is maintained.
Dependent Claim 9 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar, and further in view of Kappu.
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar, and further in view of Kappu is maintained.
Dependent Claim 10 is rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar, and further in view of Cowan.
The rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Zachar, and further in view of Cowan is maintained.
Dependent Claims 20-24 are rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Herrmann.
The rejections of Claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Herrmann are maintained.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moses (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0154030 A1) teaches implantable ultrasonic hearing aid.
Hoshi (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0144190 A1) teaches an ultrasonic wave focusing apparatus.
Ochiai et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0289722 A1) teaches using array of ultrasound emitters to focus waves a focal point to generate standing waves in the vicinity of the focal point.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights