DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-34 & 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ball et al. (WO 2014/039743) in view of Reithinger (DE 102007051307)
Ball et al. teaches:
A bone conduction hearing aid comprising at least one microphone configured to receive audio
E.G. via the disclosed external component 201 for a transcutaneous auditory prosthetic fixable beneath the skin to underlying skull bone 218 {[0007], [0015] & (Fig 2)} and the disclosed sensing microphone 207 {[0014] & [0017]}.
…a transmitter configured to be worn on a user’s ear and associated with the microphone; the transmitter configured to transmit power and/or data based on the audio over a wireless transcutaneous link; transmitter coil configured to generate a magnetic field for wireless transcutaneous communication with an implanted receiver coil.
E.G. via the disclosed external main lobe and other main lobes that contains an audio signal processor magnetically coupled to a signal transducer 203 and a drive coil 204 that provides an externally generated magnetic audio signal to couple a mechanical stimulation signal to the skull bone for delivery by bone conduction as an audio signal to the cochlea ([0014]-[0015] & (Fig 2)}.
However, Ball et al. does not expressly teach:
The transmitter comprising an open toroid including a first end spaced from a second end, wherein the transmitter coil generates a magnetic field at least between the first end and second end, and wherein the first end and second end are configured to sandwich the user’s ear.
Reithinger teaches:
A hearing device having a transmitter/antenna implemented as an open toroidal inductor/inductance (15) having a ring core toroid (17) with a gap (21) such that the toroid is not completely closed (Figs. 3 and 4).
The open toroid includes opposed end faces (22, 23) separated by the gap (21), corresponding to a first end spaced from a second end.
The transmitter includes a coil wound about the toroidal core, the coil functioning as the transmitting antenna for electromagnetic transmission.
Because the toroid is open the magnetic flux is no longer completely confined within the core, thereby producing magnetic field lines across the opening to facilitate electromagnetic transmission.
Reithinger further teaches that the transmitter is incorporated into a hearing device worn on or behind the user’s ear, whereby the opposed end portions define an opening capable of receiving a portion of the user’s ear, thereby positioning the ear between the first and second ends under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “configured to sandwich the user’s ear {[0026]-[0029] & (Figs. 3 & 4)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ball’s transmitters coil with the open toroidal transmitter configuration of Reithinger because Reithinger teaches that the open toroid improves electromagnetic transmission by allowing magnetic flux to extend through the opening while reducing device size and providing a compact transmitting antenna suitable for hearing devices. Such substitution merely employs one known transmitter geometry in place of another to obtain the predictable benefit of improved electromagnetic transmission in a hearing device.
The modification would have involved the predictable substitution of one known transmitting coil geometry for another to improve wireless electromagnetic transmission while maintaining the overall operation of Ball’s hearing aid. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Additionally, under the BRI, the recitation that the first end and second end are “configured to sandwich the user’s ear” encompasses opposed end portions defining an opening sized to receive a portion of the user’s ear. Reithinger teaches an open toroidal transmitter incorporated into a hearing device worn on or behind the ear, the transmitter including opposed end portions separated by an opening, thereby reasonably meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 22.
…wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit power and data over a wireless transcutaneous link.
E.G. Ball et al. teaches the transmitter configured to transmit both power and data over the wireless transcutaneous link, as discussed above with respect to claim 21. Therefore, claim 22 is unpatentable.
Claim 23.
…wherein the transmitter comprises an electronic unit operationally coupled to the transmitter coil.
E.G. Ball et al. teaches the transmitter further comprising an electronic unit/signal processor 305 operatively coupled to the transmitter coil for processing microphone signals and generating transmission signals, therefore claim 23 is unpatentable.
Claim 24.
…wherein the transmitter further comprises a fixation element on the first end configured to pierce the user’s ear.’
Ball et al. teaches the transmitter further comprising a fixation element configured to secure the external transmitter to the user. Therefore, claim 24 is unpatentable.
Claims 25-27
Claims 25-27 depend from claim 21.
Ball et al. and Reithinger collectively teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Regarding the additionally recited limitations:
Claim 25:
Under the BRI, Reithinger teaches opposed first and second end portions defining an opening capable of receiving the user’s ear, thereby sandwiching the ear {[0026]-[0029] & (Figs. 3 & 4)}.
Claim 26:
Ball et al. teaches an external transmitter positioned externally of the user without piercing the ear. E.G. via the disclosed external connector member 217 that flexibly connects and positions the external attachment magnets 208 over the skin 205 {[0015] & (Fig 2)}.
*Note that the examiner is interpreting the external attachment connector member and magnet as being capable of piercing the user’s ear and therefore can provide the claimed fixation element configured to pierce the user’s ear.
Claim 27:
Ball et al. teaches the transmitter is removably worn on the user’s ear.
Therefore, claims 25-27 are unpatentable.
Claim 28.
…further comprising an implantable receiver…comprises a receiver coil configured to receive the power or data over the wireless transcutaneous leak via magnetic field, and a vibrator…
E.G. Ball et al. teaches an implantable attachment magnet 202 fixable beneath the skin and the implantable signal transducer 203 {[0015], [0018] & (Fig 2)}, wherein said elements are further configured to develop magnetic drive signals through the skin to the implanted signal transducers to generate responsive vibrations of said transducer [0019].
Claim 29.
…wherein at least one turn of the transmitter coil is non-parallel to the receiver coil.
E.G. Ball et al. teacehs drive coils configured to generate drive signals in opposing magnetic directions and/or other specific magnetic orientation arrangements to generate said responsive vibration signals through the skin ([0019]-[0020]).
Claim 30.
…wherein a space between the first end and the second end is configured to be positioned within a loop of the receiver coil.
Reithinger teaches the toroid 17 having a big gap 21 where the end faces 22,23 of the open ring core…{[0026]-[0029] & (Figs. 3 & 4)}.
Ball et al. teaches the receiver coil positioned adjacent the transmitter for inductive coupling (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to position the gap within receiver coil loop to optimize inductive coupling and magnetic field transfer, as suggested by Reithinger’s teaching that the magnetic field is directed through the opening of the open toroid to improve electromagnetic transmission, thereby yielding predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Claims 31-32.
The rejection of independent claim 21 is incorporated herein by reference because claim 31 recites substantially the same limitations in independent form.
Ball et al. and Reithinger collectively teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 31 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
Regarding the additionally recited limitation, Reithinger teaches an open toroid including a slit/opening defined by opposed end portions {Reithinger teaches the toroid 17 having a big gap 21 where the end faces 22,23 of the open ring core…[0026]-[0029] & (Figs. 3 & 4)}.
Under the BRI, the opposed end portions define an opening capable of receiving at least a portion of the user’s ear, thereby satisfying the recited slit/opening limitation.
Claim 33-34
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ball et al. in view of Reithinger for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 28, which rejection is incorporated herein by reference, and further in view of the following:
Ball teaches inductively coupled transmitter and receiver coil (Figs. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to utilize a coupling coefficient of at least 0.5 and/or 0.4 between the transmitter coil and the receiver coil because discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 204 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
The previous indication of allowable subject matter with respect to claims 25-26 and 31-32 is withdrawn in view of the newly applied prior art, Reithinger (DE 10 2007 051307 A1), which teaches or suggests the subject matter previously indicated as allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that independent claims 21 and 31 are in condition for allowance because the claims have been amended to incorporate the limitations of previously indicated allowable subject matter (e.g. claims 25 and 31).
However, an indication of allowable subject matter is not a determination of patentability and does not preclude the Examiner from conducting further search or applying additional prior art where appropriate.
Following Applicant’s amendment, a supplemental search directed to the newly added limitations was conducted. As a result of that search, Reithinger (DE 10 2007 051307 A1) was identified and applied. Reithinger teaches or suggests the previously indicated allowable subject matter relating to the transmitter comprising an open toroid having a first end spaced apart from a second end, the transmitter coil generating a magnetic field between the first and second ends, and, under BRI, the opposed end portions being configured to receive at least a portion of the user’s ear. Accordingly, the previous indication of allowable subject matter with respect to claims 25-26 and 31-32 is withdrawn.
Applicant has not presented persuasive arguments or evidence demonstrating that the combined teaches of Ball et al. and Reithinger fail to teach or render obvious the amended limitations of the claims 21-34 and 36-37, nor has the applicant identified reversible error in the examiner’s findings. The applied references collectively teach or suggest the claimed subject matter, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references for the reasons set forth in the rejection.
The examiner acknowledges that the presently applied prior art does not teach or suggest the interlocked Hopf-link configuration recited in independent claim 35. Accordingly, claim 35 is in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to the objections of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive and have been withdrawn.
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights