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 .
The amendment filed on June 2, 2026 has been received and considered. By this amendment, claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 18, and 20 are amended, claims 21-25 are cancelled, claims 26-33 are added, and claims 1-20 and 26-33 are now pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2026 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
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, 10-14, 16, 17, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roehrlein (U.S. 2017/0028199, previously cited). 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 magnetic induction (MI) coil antenna 212/212a for wireless communication with an external hearing device via a near-field magnetic inductance (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]). Roehrlein discloses that the sound processor circuitry 106 in the behind the ear device 100 converts electrical signals from a microphone into stimulation data that is transmitted to the implantable device 200 (“The hearing assistance device microphone 104 picks up ambient sound pressure waves and converts them into electrical signals. 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]). This “stimulation data” is described as being “a pulse sequence having varying pulse widths and/or amplitudes”, which is considered to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claimed “coded signal”. As such, Roehrlein further discloses that the first digital signal comprises a coded signal, wherein the first control unit of the hearing implant is configured to receive the coded signal via the first radio system, and wherein the hearing implant is configured to process the coded signal.
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 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 33, it is respectfully submitted that the recitation “the first digital signal is compressed” 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.
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 2-6 and 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 claim 4, 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. 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, 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.
Claims 7, 8, and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehrlein (U.S. 2017/0028199, cited above) in view of Krishnakumar et al. (U.S. 2021/0376881). 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 magnetic induction (MI) coil antenna 212/212a for wireless communication with an external hearing device via a near-field magnetic inductance (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]). However, Roehrlein fails to disclose that the receiver (Rx) charging coil comprises an air coil coupled to a magnetically permeable support, wherein the magnetically permeable support comprises a flat ferrite support. Krishnakumar teaches wireless headphones including an inductor for near field magnetic inductance (NFMI) communication comprising a conductive coil 100 comprising an air coil (“the core of the conductive coil 100 may be air”, paragraph [0028]) coupled to a magnetically permeable support 110 (see Figure 1), wherein the magnetically permeable support comprises a flat ferrite support (“the conductive coil 100 may be wrapped around a bobbin, such as bobbin 110. The bobbin 110 may be made of various materials, such as plastic, or a ferrite material”, paragraph [0029]). Krishnakumar teaches that the inductance of the conductive coil 100 is dependent on what is inside the coil (“the conductive coil 100 may perform as an inductor, with the inductance at least partially dependent on what is inside the coil”, paragraph [0028]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roehrlein such that the receiver (Rx) charging coil comprises an air coil coupled to a magnetically permeable support, wherein the magnetically permeable support comprises a flat ferrite support, as taught by Krishnakumar, in order to provide a desired inductance and 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 claims 26-32, Roehrlein discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to discloses that the air coil of the hearing implant is a multi-layer air coil, the flat ferrite support is a flat circular ferrite support, a first adhesive between the air coil and the magnetically permeable support, a plastic layer between the air coil and the magnetically permeable support, a second adhesive, wherein the first adhesive and the second adhesive are on respective opposite sides of the magnetically permeable support, or an adhesive and a plastic layer on respective opposite sides of the magnetically permeable support. Krishnakumar teaches wireless headphones including an inductor for near field magnetic inductance (NFMI) communication comprising a conductive coil 100 comprising an air coil (“the core of the conductive coil 100 may be air”, paragraph [0028]) coupled to a magnetically permeable support 110 (see Figure 1), wherein the magnetically permeable support comprises a flat ferrite support (“the conductive coil 100 may be wrapped around a bobbin, such as bobbin 110. The bobbin 110 may be made of various materials, such as plastic, or a ferrite material”, paragraph [0029]), where the air coil of the hearing implant is a multi-layer air coil, the flat ferrite support is a flat circular ferrite support, a first adhesive between the air coil and the magnetically permeable support, a plastic layer between the air coil and the magnetically permeable support, a second adhesive, wherein the first adhesive and the second adhesive are on respective opposite sides of the magnetically permeable support, and an adhesive and a plastic layer on respective opposite sides of the magnetically permeable support (see paragraphs [0028]-[0034] which describe the construction details of the conductive coil of Krishnakumar). Krishnakumar teaches that the inductance of the conductive coil 100 is dependent on what is inside the coil (“the conductive coil 100 may perform as an inductor, with the inductance at least partially dependent on what is inside the coil”, paragraph [0028]). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roehrlein such that the receiver (Rx) charging coil comprises an air coil coupled to a magnetically permeable support, wherein the air coil of the hearing implant is a multi-layer air coil, the flat ferrite support is a flat circular ferrite support, a first adhesive between the air coil and the magnetically permeable support, a plastic layer between the air coil and the magnetically permeable support, a second adhesive, wherein the first adhesive and the second adhesive are on respective opposite sides of the magnetically permeable support, or an adhesive and a plastic layer on respective opposite sides of the magnetically permeable support, as taught by Krishnakumar, in order to provide a desired inductance and 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
Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roehrlein (U.S. 2017/0028199, cited above) in view of Griffith (U.S. 2006/0190059). Regarding claims 15 and 18, Roehrlein discloses a hearing system comprising: a hearing implant 200/200a configured to be implantable in a user (see Figures 2, 4, 5, and 13); and an external charging device 400 (see Figure 13); wherein the hearing implant comprises: a first radio system having a first magnetic induction (MI) coil antenna 212/212a for wireless communication with an external hearing device via a near-field magnetic inductance (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]). However, Roehrlein fails to disclose that the external charging device is configured to generate and transmit the first digital signal for reception by the hearing implant or the external charging device comprising one or more microphones for detecting the acoustic signal. Instead, the charging power and first digital signal are received from separate external devices, the charging signal received from device 400 and the first digital signal received from external BTE hearing assistance device 100 (see Figure 13). Griffith teaches a cochlear stimulation apparatus that includes an implantable device 40 and an external device 30 (see Figure 1), wherein the external device is configured to generate and transfer stimulation and power signals to the implantable device and comprises one or more microphones (“sound processing circuitry within the BTE unit for processing signals generated by the microphone in response to sound sensed through the microphone or otherwise applied to the sound processing circuitry as an input signal, signal processing circuitry within the BTE unit for processing the input signal and generating stimulation, control and power signals for transferring to the implanted portion, and an external coil within the BTE unit for coupling the stimulation, control and power signals to the implanted portion.”, paragraph [0118]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the external charging device 400 and external BTE hearing assistance device 100 of Roehrlein into a single device, as taught by Griffith, in order to decrease the number of components necessary and as it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
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: 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Roehrlein, the Applicant argues that Roehrlein fails to disclose the newly-amended aspect of “coded signals”. The Applicant argues that Roehrlein discloses stimulation data that is converted into stimulation signals, but there is nothing that discloses or suggests any hearing implant that processes coded signals. However, Applicant fails to explain what Applicant intends for the interpretation of “coded signals” to be. As discussed above, Roehrlein discloses that the sound processor circuitry 106 in the behind the ear device 100 converts electrical signals from a microphone into stimulation data that is transmitted to the implantable device 200 (“The hearing assistance device microphone 104 picks up ambient sound pressure waves and converts them into electrical signals. 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]). This “stimulation data” is described as being “a pulse sequence having varying pulse widths and/or amplitudes”, which is considered to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claimed “coded signal”. As such, Roehrlein discloses the invention as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7, 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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
Prosecution Insights