DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 36-45, 47-51, 55-59, 61-63 and 72-74 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The Applicant argued that the prior arts of record Smith (US 2010/0198301) and Lievans (US 2014/0274730) did not have the amended claimed feature “obtaining access to a sensory prosthesis that has been used to evoke a sensory percept using a first stimulation regime for a temporal period corresponding to at least acclimation to the first stimulation regime; and adjusting a control setting of the prosthesis to increase current to and/or from certain electrode(s) relative to that which is the case with respect to the first stimulation regime, wherein the action of adjusting the control setting includes purposely adjusting the control setting to have stimulation that is effectively more diffuse than a minimum possible diffuseness,” as required by claim 1, “a device configured to control stimulation to evoke a sensory percept via tissue stimulation of tissue of a recipient of the system; and a device configured to enable the recipient to adjust the system so that the system stimulates the tissue in a different manner,” as required by claim 36, “a computer program for executing at least a portion of a method of fitting a sensory prosthesis to a recipient, the computer program including: code for enabling recipient controlled gradual transitioning from different stimulation modes,” as required by claim 43, “an electrical stimulation apparatus configured to electrically stimulate tissue of a recipient of the device; and an apparatus configured to enable the recipient to vary focusing of the device with respect to tissue stimulation, wherein the device is a medical device,” as required by claim 56 when combined with all the limitations of claims 1, 36, 43, and 56 respectively. The Examiner has considered the Applicant's arguments to be persuasive and claims 1, 36, 43 and 56 overcome the prior art of record.
Claim 68 and 75 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-22, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to claims 1, 36, 43 and 56 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 1, 36, 43 and 56 and its dependents has been withdrawn.
The Examiner points out that the while the Applicant traversed the rejection of claim 64-67, 70 and 71 no arguments were made. With regards the Applicant’s argument against dependent claim 69, the basis of the argument was that its independent claim was deficient and thus the rejection upon the dependent claim is deficient. The Examiner considers this argument unpersuasive as the Applicant failed to make any arguments against independent claim 64.
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) 64-67, 70 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2010/0198301).
Regarding claim 64, Smith discloses a method of operating a stimulating medical device, comprising: obtaining access to the medical device, wherein the medical device has been used to stimulate tissue during a first temporal period (cochlear implant system is initially set up with default electrode weights for each stimulation channel (interpreted to meet a first stimulation regime) and executes said stimulation regime for a temporal period, [0041]-[0045], the cochlear implant system is accessed after measurements are taken thus fulfilling “obtaining access to a sensory prosthesis that has been used to evoke a sensory percept using a first stimulation regime for a temporal period corresponding to at least acclimation to the first stimulation regime”); and changing weights of stimulation channels of the medical device from that which was used during the first temporal period, wherein the action of changing the weights includes purposely changing the weights so that resulting stimulation using those weights changes a focusing of the stimulation (after measuring the results during the first temporal period, the fitting system 306 adjusts the weights for the probe channel to increase the focus of the channel or to decrease the focus of the channel depending on certain conditions, [0045]-[0052], [0056], [0057], [0065]).
Regarding claim 65, Smith discloses wherein: the medical device has an electrode array that is used to stimulate tissue (methods of stimulation can include monopolar, bipolar, tripolar, and phased-array stimulation with the adjustment of numerous electrodes with weighted adjustment of -0.3 or -0.4, etc., [0033], [0034], [0039], [0040], [0056], [0057], [0069]); and the resulting change in weights produces an asymmetrical stimulation pattern along the electrode array (since the weights of each electrode can be individually adjusted the resulting change in weights would produce an asymmetrical stimulation pattern along the electrode array, [0033], [0034], [0039], [0040], [0056], [0057], [0069]).
Regarding claim 66, Smith discloses wherein: relative weights of various stimulation channels changed in the action of changing the weights are different (relative weights of various stimulation channels changed in the action of changing the weights are different (electrodes are individually weighted and adjusted, [0033], [0034], [0039], [0040], [0056], [0057], [0069]).
Regarding claim 67, Smith discloses wherein: a weight of a first stimulation channel is higher than a weight of a second stimulation channel (first neighboring electrodes given a weight of -0.3 which is higher than the weight of extra-cochlea electrode (second stimulation channel with a weight of -0.4), [0056]); and a third stimulation channel immediately next to the first stimulation channel and the second stimulation channel vis-a-vis location along the electrode array has a weight that is different from the weight of the first stimulation channel and the weight of the second stimulation channel (central electrode (third stimulation channel) is next to the first and second stimulation channels and has a weight that is different from both of them +1.0, [0056]).
Regarding claim 70, Smith discloses further comprising: fine tuning threshold and comfort levels for the changed weights where the action of fine medical professional (fine tuning threshold and comfort levels for changed parameters set up by audiologist 304, [0037], [0078]).
Regarding claim 71, Smith discloses wherein: the medical device is a cochlear implant having a plurality of intra-cochlear electrodes (medical device is a cochlear implant having a plurality of intra-cochlear electrodes, [0004]); and the method is a method of gradually transitioning to focused multipolar stimulation from more simple stimulation regimes (method of gradually transitioning to focused multipolar stimulation from more simple stimulation regimes (going from monopolar to bipolar to tripolar or to more complex stimulation methods), [0033], [0034], [0039], [0040], [0056], [0057], [0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0198301) in view of Lievans et al. (US 2014/0275730) herein Lievans.
Regarding claim 69, while Smith does not specifically teach wherein: the action of changing weights is executed by a recipient of the medical device, it is well known in the art to have a recipient able to change the parameter and weights of their hearing prosthesis as demonstrated by Lievans (user can adjust one or more electrical stimulation controls to modify the electrical stimulation parameters (weights), Lievans: [0051], and user can be the hearing prosthesis recipient, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Smith to allow adjustment by a recipient as demonstrated by Lievans in order to give a user more control over their hearing experience.
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 SEAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 PM.
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.
/SEAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights