DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolognini et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0138679 (hereinafter Bolognini) in view of Sherva et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0123497 (hereinafter Sherva).
Regarding claim 1, Bolognini discloses an implantable medical device (from Figure 1, see 100), the device comprising:
a metal case (from Figure 6, see 110);
a structured layer (from Figure 6, see 116) internal to the metal case and including a structured cavity (from Figure 6, see 115) arranged next to the metal case; and
a piezo speaker (from Figure 6, see 152) arranged between the metal case and the structured cavity of the structured layer, wherein the piezo speaker contacts the metal case.
Still on the issue of claim 1, Bolognini does not explicitly teach that the structure is formed via a molding technique. All the same, Sherva discloses this feature (from abstract, see molded). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bolgnini wherein the structured is molded as taught by Sherva. This modification would have made manufacturing easier by providing a highly configurable shape as suggested by Bolgnini.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bolgnini and Sherva discloses the molded cavity of the mold layer includes a cavity surface opposite the piezo speaker and the cavity surface is concave (see Figure 4 of Bolgnini).
Regarding claim 7, Bolgnini discloses the piezo speaker (from Figure 2, see 152) includes a piezo element (from Figure 2, see 160) contacting a metal substrate (from Figure 2, see 154); and wherein the device further includes an insulating layer (from Figure 2, see 158) covering the metal substrate and the piezo element.
Regarding claim 9, Bolognini discloses a method of forming an audio mechanism of an implantable medical device (from Figure 1, see 100), the method comprising:
forming a metal case (from Figure 6, see 110);
forming a structured layer (from Figure 6, see 116) including a structured cavity (from Figure 6, see 115);
arranging the structured layer in the metal case with the structured cavity arranged adjacent to a wall (from Figure 6, see 112) of the metal case; and
arranging a piezo speaker (from Figure 6, see 152) between the metal case and the structured cavity of the structured layer, wherein the piezo speaker contacts the metal case.
Still on the issue of claim 9, Bolognini does not explicitly teach that the structure is formed via a molding technique. All the same, Sherva discloses this feature (from abstract, see molded). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bolgnini wherein the structured is molded as taught by Sherva. This modification would have made manufacturing easier by providing a highly configurable shape as suggested by Bolgnini.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bolognini and Sherva discloses forming the mold (see abstract of Sherva) layer includes forming a mold layer that includes a molded cavity having a concave cavity surface; and wherein arranging the piezo speaker includes arranging the piezo speaker opposite the concave cavity surface and in contact with a metal wall of the metal case (see Figure 6 of Bolognini).
Regarding claim 15, the comination of Bolognini and Sherva discloses wherein the arranging the piezo speaker includes: arranging, between the metal case and the molded (see abstract of Sherva) cavity, a piezo speaker that includes a piezo element contacting a metal substrate; and covering the metal substrate and the piezo element with an insulating layer (see Figure 7 of Bolognini).
3. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolognini combined with Sherva in further view of Duggan, U.S. Patent No. 4,481,950 (hereinafter Duggan).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bolognini and Sherva does not explicitly teach that the metal substrate includes a brass disk, the piezo element includes a piezoelectric ceramic, and the insulation layer includes polyimide. All the same, Duggan discloses the metal substrate includes a brass disk, the piezo element includes a piezoelectric ceramic, and the insulation layer includes polyimide (see column 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Bolognini and Sherva wherein the metal substrate includes a brass disk, the piezo element includes a piezoelectric ceramic, and the insulation layer includes polyimide as taught by Duggan. This modification would have improved reliability by providing proper insulation from the battery case as suggested by Duggan.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 17-19 and 21 are allowed while claims 3-6 and 11-14 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
June 16, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights