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 page 6, filed 27 August 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 4,498,461 hereinafter Hakansson in further view of 2005/0249366 hereinafter Westerkull.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the rejection of claim 19, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertions. Examiner points out that Hakansson teaches a coupling method in column 6 lines 17-26 to further clarify the similarity in methods between Hakansson and the present device. As the claims are currently written, Examiner asserts the steps are exemplified by Hakansson. Hakansson also states that the device is “relatively easy to disassemble” (column 5 lines 67-68). Examiner asserts the coupling device being easy to disassemble as the device being removable without destructible elements. With regard to the argument that the O-ring is not compressed by respective surfaces of the device and the abutment, Hakansson teaches that the force pressing the coupling parts together is activated by the O-ring’s flexibility and examiner asserts that the flexibility of a silicone rubber O-ring would include the ability to be compressed. Examiner asserts that the compression of the O-ring is what helps keep the device in place.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 15, examiner respectfully disagrees that the references provided have an O-ring that applies force in the latitudinal direction. Examiner asserts that Figure 7A shows the O-ring item 74 is wedged in the recess 84 and contacting both the top and bottom of the groove. Examiner asserts the O-ring shown must be applying pressure in the latitudinal direction in order to keep the device in place.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, t.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 11 and the argument that the threads of Morris does not disclose or suggest the recited shape or parameter; examiner is now using Westerkull paragraph 37 “circular spring” to teach a wavelike perimeter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,498,461 hereinafter Hakansson.
In regards to Claim 19: A method comprising:
attaching a device to an abutment affixed to a recipient's body by moving the device along a first direction towards the abutment such that a ring-shaped elastically compressible member is compressed by the respective surfaces of the device and the abutment (Hakansson, Figure 7A Column 6 Lines 23-26; “a force pressing the coupling parts together is activated by the O-ring's 74 flexibility”) between an inner perimeter of the ring-shaped elastically compressible member and an outer perimeter of the ring-shaped elastically compressible member (Hakansson, Figure 7A Item 74; Column 6 Lines 1-16 & Lines 23-26; Examiner Interprets the figure to show a device that is coupled using the same method described in the claim language.); and
detaching the device from the abutment without damaging the device and/or the abutment (Hakansson, Figure 7 Item 74; Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; “relatively easy to disassemble”; Examiner Interprets The device to be removable without any permanent/destructible components (e.g. rivets, one-time adhesives, etc. that would cause the detachment to be broken).).
In regards to Claim 20: The method of claim 19, wherein said detaching comprises moving the device along a second direction away from the abutment (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Examiner interprets the device described in figure 7 is removed by pulling on the device).
In regards to Claim 21: The method of claim 20, wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially parallel to one another (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7; Examiner interprets both the first and second direction is perpendicular to axis 20).
In regards to Claim 22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first direction and the second direction are at a non-zero angle relative to one another (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7; Examiner interprets the Chamfers integrated into the coupling part 77 allow for the coupling and decoupling of the device to be accomplished at an off angle).
In regards to Claim 23: The method of claim 19, wherein the ring-shaped elastically compressible member comprises an O-ring, a C-clip, or a garter spring (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7 Item 74; Examiner interprets the silicone rubber O-ring to be elastic).
In regards to Claim 24: The method of claim 23, wherein the ring-shaped elastically compressible member is in a recess of the device or the abutment (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7 Item, 74; The silicone rubber O-ring is elastically compressible).
In regards to Claim 25: The method of claim 19, wherein said detaching comprises applying a torque to the device while the device is attached to the abutment such that an angle between a longitudinal axis of the device and a longitudinal axis of the abutment becomes greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Hakansson; Column 6 Lines 1-16; Examiner interprets putting torque on the device described in Hakansson in a manner that misaligns the axis of the abutment and the coupling device as a method that would promote removal of the device.).
In regards to Claim 26: The method of claim 19, further comprising, after attaching the device to the abutment, but before detaching the device from the abutment, transmitting vibrations from the device to the recipient's body via the abutment, the vibrations generated by the device in response to electrical signals indicative of sound detected by at least one microphone of the device (Hakansson; Column 6 Lines 43-53).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,498,461 hereinafter Hakansson in view of US 2005/0249366 hereinafter Westerkull.
In regards to Claim 1: Hakansson teaches of an apparatus comprising:
a coupling portion configured to be releasably coupled to an abutment affixed to a recipient's body (Hakansson, Figure 7A; Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16), the coupling portion comprising:
a substantially cylindrically symmetric body portion extending along a symmetry axis (Hakansson, Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 79), and
a resilient member in the circumferential recess and extending around the symmetry axis, the resilient member extending outwardly past the outer body surface and configured to contact an inner abutment surface of the abutment, the resilient member configured to undergo compression by the inner abutment surface and an inner surface of the circumferential recess upon being releasably coupled to the abutment, the compression having a component substantially perpendicular to the symmetry axis (Hakansson, Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 74).
However, Hakansson does not expressly teach a circumferential recess.
Westerkull pertains to a connection device for connecting a hearing aid to the skull bone (Westerkull, Abstract), and teaches of the body portion comprising an outer body surface having a circumferential recess extending around the symmetry axis (Westerkull, Paragraph 37; Figure 2 Item 106 “Groove”; Examiner interprets the groove 106 to be circumferential because is along the outside of the coupling shoe and configured to hold a circular spring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the recess on the body portion being circumferential as taught in Westerkull to the device of Hakansson, the motivation being to provide radial forces to hold and bias the device in place.
In regard to Claim 2: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the resilient member comprises an O-ring, a C-clip, or a garter spring (Hakansson, Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 74).
In regard to Claim 3: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the body portion, the circumferential recess, and the resilient member are substantially circularly symmetric about the symmetry axis (Hakansson, Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 85=symmetry axis; Examiner interprets the resilient member and recess to be symmetrical around the axis 85).
In regard to Claim 4: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coupling portion further comprises a first rigid surface (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 35-42 “Contact piece”, Figure 7A item 86) and the abutment comprises a second rigid surface (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 35-42 “contact piece”, Figure 7A item 2), the coupling portion configured to press the first rigid surface against the second rigid surface with a force generated by the compression of the resilient member (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 35-42 “contact piece”).
In regard to Claim 5: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the apparatus further comprises an actuator configured to generate vibrations, at least a portion of the vibrations transmitted to the recipient's body via the first rigid surface and the second rigid surface (Hakansson, Column 1 Lines 10-19).
In regard to Claim 6: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coupling portion is configured to release from being coupled to the abutment upon tilting of the apparatus relative to the abutment by a predetermined angle (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 74; “easy to disassemble”).
In regard to Claim 7: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the compression of the resilient member reduces a distance between an inner perimeter of the resilient member and an outer perimeter of the resilient member (Hakansson, Figure 7 Item 74; Examiner interprets the O-ring of figure 7 to be deformable so that the inner and outer perimeter become closer together).
In regards to Claim 9: A modified Hakansson teaches of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coupling portion comprises a male component (Hakansson, Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 79) and the abutment comprises a female component (Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7A Item 77) configured to mate with the male component of the coupling portion, or the coupling portion comprises a female component and the abutment comprises a male component configured to mate with the female component of the coupling portion (Hakansson, Column 5 Lines 66~ Column 6 Lines 1-16).
Claim(s) 8 & 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,498,461 hereinafter Hakansson in view of US 2005/0249366 hereinafter Westerkull in view of US 2021/0152955 hereinafter Morris.
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Hakansson teaches all of claim 1,but does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises an external portion of a percutaneous bone conduction auditory prosthesis.
An embodiment of Morris teaches wherein the apparatus comprises an external portion of a percutaneous bone conduction auditory prosthesis (Morris, Figure 4 Item 440).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the external device taught in an embodiment of Morris to the bone conduction coupling device taught in a modified Hakansson, the motivation being to ensure direct access to perform maintenance.
In regards to Claim 10: A modified Hakansson teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the resilient member has a substantially non-circular shape.
An embodiment of Morris teaches wherein the resilient member has a substantially non-circular shape (Morris, Figure 7 Item 740).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the coupling device taught in an embodiment of Morris to the bone conduction coupling device taught in a modified Hakansson, the motivation being to create a keyhole like effect that allows the device to only be coupled in the correct orientation.
In regards to Claim 11: A modified Hakansson teaches all of claims 1 & 10, but does not teach wherein the resilient member has a substantially elliptical or polygonal shape and/or a wave-like perimeter varies in the radial direction relative to the symmetry axis and/or the axial direction relative to the symmetry axis.
Westerkull teaches wherein the resilient member has a substantially elliptical or polygonal shape and/or a wave-like perimeter varies in the radial direction relative to the symmetry axis and/or the axial direction relative to the symmetry axis (Westerkull, Figure 2 Item 11 “spring”; Examiner interprets the circular spring to have a wave-like perimeter in the radial direction).
In regards to Claim 12: A modified Hakansson teaches all of claims 1 & 10, but does not teach wherein the resilient member does not contact both the coupling portion and the abutment substantially continuously along the resilient member.
Hakansson teaches wherein the resilient member does not contact both the coupling portion and the abutment substantially continuously along the resilient member (Hakansson, Figure 7a Item 74 vs. 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the O-ring that does not cover the whole coupling mechanism taught in Hakansson to the bone conduction coupling device taught in a modified Hakansson, the motivation being to dampen the sound transmitted by the device when coupled and uncoupled.
In regards to Claim 13: A modified Hakansson teaches all of claims 1 & 10, but does not teach wherein the resilient member is configured to fit within grooves of the coupling portion and the abutment.
Hakansson teaches wherein the resilient member is configured to fit within grooves of the coupling portion and the abutment (Hakansson, Figure 7a Items 74 & 78).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the groove within the abutment configured to mate with the O-ring taught in Hakansson to the bone conduction coupling device taught in a modified Hakansson, the motivation being to provide an exact place for the coupling mechanism to lock into to ensure a complete connection.
In regards to Claim 14: A modified Hakansson teaches all of claim 13, but does not teach wherein the grooves are configured to facilitate axial fixation provided by the resilient member.
Morris teaches wherein the grooves are configured to facilitate axial fixation provided by the resilient member (Morris, Figure 16 Item 1653a; Examiner interprets the threads to allow for axial fixation when torque is applied to the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the groove being configured to facilitate axial fixation as taught by Morris to the device described in a modified Hakansson, the motivation being to provide forces to keep the device coupled to the abutment.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0152955 hereinafter Morris in view of US 4,498,461 hereinafter Hakansson.
In regards to Claim 15: Morris teaches An apparatus comprising: a rigid body portion having a center axis (Morris, Paragraph 115; Figure 16 Item 1652a) and configured to be releasably attached to an abutment affixed to a recipient's body by moving the rigid body portion along the center axis towards the recipient's body (Morris, Paragraph 115; Figure 16 Item 1662a), the rigid body portion or the abutment comprising a channel completely encircling the center axis (Morris, Paragraph 115; Figure 16 Item 1653a & 1663b; Examiner Interprets each thread to create a channel that completely encompasses the coupling device.). Morris does not teach an elastically compressible element in the channel and completely encircling the center axis, the elastically compressible element configured to, upon the rigid body portion being releasably attached to the abutment, apply forces having substantially radial force components to both the rigid body portion and the abutment.
Hakansson teaches an elastically compressible element in the channel and completely encircling the center axis (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7 Groove in Item 79), the elastically compressible element configured to (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Figure 7 Item 74), upon the rigid body portion being releasably attached to the abutment, apply forces having substantially radial force components to both the rigid body portion and the abutment (Hakansson, Column 6 Lines 1-16; Examiner interprets the O-ring of Hakansson to be disengaged when torque is applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the O-ring and accompanying groove as taught by Hakansson to the bone conduction coupling device taught by Morris, the motivation being to provide a secure lock that applies force in all latitudinal directions.
In regards to Claim 16: A modified Morris teaches all of claim 15, and wherein the elastically compressible element comprises an O-ring, a C-clip, or a garter spring (Hakansson, Figure 7 Item 74; Column 6 Lines 1-16).
In regards to Claim 17: A modified Morris teaches all of claim 15, and wherein the rigid body portion and the abutment are configured to be snap coupled to one another (Morris, Paragraph 115).
In regards to Claim 18: a modified Morris teaches all of claim 15, and a transducer configured to generate vibrational energy, the rigid body portion and the abutment configured to provide a transmission path for the vibrational energy from the transducer to the recipient's body (Morris, Paragraph 115; Figure 16A Item 1654a; Examiner interprets the coupling device mentioned in Morris as a device that transmits vibrations).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights