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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-23, in the reply filed on November 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 25, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023 and 1/24/2024 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The Applicant is reminded to carefully review the drawing figures and the accompanying specification to ensure that all reference numerals present in the drawing figures are defined within the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviations “MI” and “NFMI” should be defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roehrlein et al. (U.S. 2017/0028199), herein Roehrlein. Regarding claim 1, Roehrlein discloses a hearing implant 200/200a (see Figures 2, 4, and 5) configured to be implantable in a user, the hearing implant comprising: a first radio system having a first MI coil antenna 212/212a for wireless communication with an external hearing device via a NFMI data communication link (“The data receiver apparatus may be, for example, an NFMI data receiver apparatus or an RF data receiver apparatus.”, paragraph [0038]); a rechargeable battery assembly 210/210a comprising a rechargeable battery (“the battery 210 is a rechargeable battery”, paragraph [0039]) and a receiver (Rx) charging coil configured to provide charging power to the rechargeable battery (“In those instances where the battery 210 is a rechargeable battery, the cochlear stimulator 200 may be provided with power receiver apparatus. Power may be received by way of the coil antenna 212 or by way of a separate antenna.”, paragraph [0039]), wherein the receiver (Rx) charging coil is connectable to a transmitter (Tx) charging coil of an external charging device via a wireless magnetic induction link for receipt of the charging power from the external charging device (“Here, power from an external inductive recharging apparatus (not shown) may be supplied to the battery 210 as necessary.”, paragraph [0039]); a first control unit 204 configured to receive a first digital signal via the first radio system, and to provide electric stimulation signals based on the first digital signal, the first digital signal being representative of an acoustic signal (“The stimulation processor 204 converts the data into stimulation signals that stimulate the electrodes in the array 208.”, paragraph [0041]); and an electrode array 208 configured to stimulate a cochlea nerve of the user based on the electric stimulation signals (“The electrode array 208 electrically stimulates the auditory nerve inside the cochlea, thereby providing the user with sensory input that is a representation of external sound waves which were sensed by the microphone 104.”, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, it is respectfully submitted that the recitation “the NFMI data communication link comprises a carrier frequency from about 5 MHz to about 30 MHz” fails to further define the claimed invention over that of the prior art because it is directed to the particulars of a signal and not to any further patentable aspect of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, it is respectfully submitted that the recitation “the NFMI data communication link comprises a carrier frequency from about 20 MHz to about 25 Mhz” fails to further define the claimed invention over that of the prior art because it is directed to the particulars of a signal and not to any further patentable aspect of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Roehrlein discloses that the acoustic signal comprises speech detected by the external hearing device (“sound processor circuitry that converts electrical signals from a microphone into stimulation data, and a data communication apparatus configured to wirelessly transmit the stimulation data”, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Roehrlein discloses that the acoustic signal is received by the external hearing device (“wirelessly transmitting microphone-generated signals from an external hearing assistance device associated with the user's head”, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, it is respectfully submitted that the recitation “the first digital signal is generated and transmitted by the external hearing device” fails to further define the claimed invention over that of the prior art because it is directed to the limitations of a signal that is received by the claimed device rather than further defining the claimed device itself.
Regarding claim 15, it is respectfully submitted that the recitation “the first digital signal is generated and transmitted by the external charging device” fails to further define the claimed invention over that of the prior art because it is directed to the limitations of a signal that is received by the claimed device rather than further defining the claimed device itself.
Regarding claim 16, Roehrlein discloses a hearing system comprising: the hearing implant according to claim 1 and an external hearing device 100/100a (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Roehrlein discloses that the external hearing device comprises: a second radio system 118 for wireless communication with the first radio system of the hearing implant via the NFMI data communication link (“There is also a wireless data link between the BTE hearing assistance device 100 and the cochlear simulator 200…One example of a suitable data communication apparatus is a near field magnetic induction (“NFMI”) apparatus where a data transmitter and coil antenna generate a short range, low-power, non-propagating magnetic field”, paragraph [0037]), wherein said second radio system comprises a second MI coil antenna; and a second control unit 106 configured to generate the first digital signal (“The electrical signals are the processed by the sound processor circuitry 106 and converted to stimulation data (e.g., a pulse sequence having varying pulse widths and/or amplitudes)”, paragraph [0041]); wherein the second MI coil antenna of the external hearing device is configured to transmit the first digital signal for reception by the first radio system of the hearing implant (“a data transmitter 116 drives a data antenna 118 to transmit stimulation data”, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, Roehrlein discloses a hearing system comprising: the hearing implant according to claim 1, and the external charging device 400/100.
Regarding claim 19, Roehrlein discloses that the rechargeable battery assembly of the hearing implant comprises a first magnetic component 218; wherein the external charging device comprises a second magnetic component 406; and wherein the first and second magnetic components are configured to align the receiver (Rx) charging coil and the transmitter (Tx) charging coil (“a positioning magnet 406 that is attracted to the positioning magnet 218 of the cochlear stimulator 200a”, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Roehrlein discloses that the external charging device comprises: one or more microphones 104 for detecting the acoustic signal (“The hearing assistance device microphone 104 picks up ambient sound pressure waves and converts them into electrical signals.”, paragraph [0041]); a charging device control unit 106 for producing the first digital signal representative of the acoustic signal detected by the one or more microphone(s) (“a “stimulation processor” is a processor that converts the stimulation data from a sound processing device (e.g., the sound processor circuitry 106) into stimulation signals that stimulate the electrodes of an electrode array”, paragraph [0040]); and a charging device radio system 118 for communication with the first radio system of the hearing implant, the charging device radio system being configured to transmit the first digital signal to the hearing implant (“The antenna 214 may be a coil antenna that is inductively coupled to the coil antenna 118 of the hearing assistance device 100.”, paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 21, Roehrlein discloses an external hearing device 100 for wear at, or in, an ear (see Figures 5 and 16), the external hearing device configured to communicate with a hearing implant 200/200a, the hearing implant comprising a first control unit 204 and a first radio system having a first MI coil antenna 212/212a, the external hearing device comprising: a second radio system for wireless communication with the first radio system of the hearing implant via a NFMI data communication link (“There is also a wireless data link between the BTE hearing assistance device 100 and the cochlear simulator 200…One example of a suitable data communication apparatus is a near field magnetic induction (“NFMI”) apparatus where a data transmitter and coil antenna generate a short range, low-power, non-propagating magnetic field”, paragraph [0037]), wherein said second radio system comprises a second MI coil antenna 118; and a second control unit 106 configured to generate a first digital signal; wherein the second MI coil antenna of the external hearing device is configured to transmit the first digital signal for reception by the first radio system of the hearing implant (“a data transmitter 116 drives a data antenna 118 to transmit stimulation data”, paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 22, Roehrlein discloses a housing 102, and a microphone 104 arranged inside the housing of the external hearing device, wherein the microphone is configured to detect acoustic signal from a surrounding environment of the external hearing device, the first digital signal being based on the acoustic signal (“The hearing assistance device microphone 104 picks up ambient sound pressure waves and converts them into electrical signals.”, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 23, Roehrlein discloses that the external hearing device is connectable to a microphone 104, wherein the microphone is configured to detect acoustic signal from a surrounding environment of the external hearing device, the first digital signal being based on the acoustic signal (“The hearing assistance device microphone 104 picks up ambient sound pressure waves and converts them into electrical signals.”, paragraph [0041]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehrlein (U.S. 2017/0028199, cited above). Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, Roehrlein discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that an inductance of the first MI coil antenna is between 2 µH and 20 µH, an inductance of the first MI coil antenna is between 3 µH and 10 µH, an inductance of the receiver (Rx) charging coil is between 10 µH and 50 µH at 100 kHz, or an inductance of the receiver (Rx) charging coil is between 20 µH and 40 µH at 100 kHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an inductance of the first MI coil antenna to be between 2 µH and 20 µH, an inductance of the first MI coil antenna to be between 3 µH and 10 µH, an inductance of the receiver (Rx) charging coil to be between 10 µH and 50 µH at 100 kHz, or an inductance of the receiver (Rx) charging coil to be between 20 µH and 40 µH at 100 kHz, as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 8, Roehrlein discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the first MI coil antenna comprises a solenoid coil wound around a magnetically permeable core or the receiver (Rx) charging coil comprises a multi-layer air coil abutted to a magnetically permeable support, wherein the magnetically permeable support comprises a flat circular ferrite support. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the first MI coil antenna of Roehrlein as a solenoid coil wound around a magnetically permeable core and the receiver (Rx) charging coil of Roehrlein as a multi-layer air coil abutted to a magnetically permeable support, wherein the magnetically permeable support comprises a flat circular ferrite support, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 9, Roehrlein discloses that the first control unit 204 comprises a processor (“internal stimulation processor 204”, paragraph [0038]), but fails to describe the processor as a digital signal processor, or a microprocessor, or both the digital signal processor and the microprocessor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the processor of Roehrlein to be a microprocessor since it was known in the art to use microprocessors as processors within implantable medical devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796