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
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.
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 1-7, 9-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koka et al (WO2017/065809) in view of Launer (9044608), or over Koka et al in view of Haller (8437859).
Koka meets the claimed limitations as follows:
--a computing module having a display (e.g. figure 5, element 502; Figures 4/7, element 402, paras. 32, 44, with GUI, etc.)
--a processor to execute an application and direct the display to display a GUI (e.g. figure 5, element 502, paras. 32, 33, 44, 71-73 with computer/laptop and GUI, etc.)
--a base module connected to the computing module processor (e.g. figure 5, elements 504 and 104 connected by cable 506 to laptop; figure 7, element 104, para. 33, etc.)
--housing an interface module (e.g. figure 5, elements 504 and 104, housing a computer module, para. 33; figure 7, element 104, etc.) also configured to be coupled to a cochlear stimulator (e.g. cochlear implant 108 where sound processor is to couple to cochlear implant through coiled headpiece 106, paras. 19, 24; figure 5, element 104; figure 7, element 104, etc.)
--where the interface unit is further configured to generate acoustic stimulation through a sound delivery apparatus (e.g. figure 7, processor 104 delivering sound to element 302, para. 30, etc.).
Koka teaches for: claim 2, the communications port configured to be selectively coupled to a coil for wirelessly communicating with the cochlear implant (e.g. figure 5, cable 508, to sound processor that connects with transmission coil, paras. 19, 24; figure 7, bidirectional arrow between 104 and 106 as a virtual communication port, etc.); claims 3-7, note that the claims have not positively claimed/recited the coil or the cochlear implant, but only the system being configured to perform functions. Koka shows the link between the sound processor, 104, coil headpiece, 106, and cochlear implant, 108, is a bidirectional link to transmit data/commands, where the interface unit sends evoked data to the processor for analysis, and sends commands to the implant (e.g. paras. 23-24, 48, 59, etc.) and therefore the system of Koka is capable of meeting the functional use recitations of sending evoked data from the cochlear implant through the coil to the processor, and commands from the interface unit to the cochlear as the system is capable of sending data that way (in the alternative, see the 103 rejection below); claim 9, the interface unit to receive a command from the processor to generate acoustic stimulation (e.g. paras. 51-53, etc.); claims 10 and 11, the base module using a port and cable to detach from the computing module and being able to connect to another computing device (e.g. figure 5, element 506, para. 33, etc.); claim 14, the computing module having physical input buttons configured to be selectively programmed to perform one or more functions (e.g. keyboard, figure 5, element 502, paras. 32, 80, etc.); claim 15, the processor is configured to wirelessly connect to an input device configured to be used by a user (e.g. wireless connection to sound processor that is an input device used by the user; paras. 32, 50, 62, etc.); claim 16, the coil can be thrown away and is therefore disposable; claims 17-19, as seen in figure 5, the base (e.g. element 504, in combination with element 104) can be used as a stand for the computing module when the laptop is placed on the base, where the laptop display will be at an angle greater than zero when placed on the base, and the base module is adjustable to provide different viewing angles as the base and can be adjusted/angled by moving it to a different angled surface, or placing a small wedge under the base to angle it at a different degree; and claim 20, the sound delivery apparatus having tubing to couple to the audio port (e.g. paras. 42, 50, etc.).
Koka discloses the claimed invention except for the use of tubing that has been selected to be coupled to the audio port for delivery of acoustic stimulation/sound to the sound apparatus placed in or near an entrance to an ear canal of a recipient. Launer teaches the use of tubing selected to be connected to an audio port to deliver sound to the sound apparatus at the ear canal of the recipient (e.g. figure 4, col. 5, lines 59-67, etc.) as an inexpensive way to route sound to the patient’s ear. Similarly, Haller teaches the tubing (e.g. figure 3C, element 45, col. 7, lines 64-67, etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Koka, with the use of tubing selected to be connected to the audio port to deliver sound/the acoustic stimulation to the sound apparatus at an ear canal of a recipient, as taught by Launer or Haller, since it would provide the predictable results of delivering sound/acoustic stimulation by an inexpensive way to route sound to the patient’s ear.
In the alternative for claims 3-7, claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Koka et al in view of Launer or Haller, and further in view of Faltys et al (6308101). If it is argued that Koka et al in view of Launer or Haller do not teach the limitations of claims 3-7, Faltys teaches that it is known to have back telemetry from the implantable cochlear system to the processor through the interface and coil and provide commands to the cochlear system to record data for fitting/testing (e.g. figure 1A-E, col. 7, lines 35-45, col. 8, lines 45-67, col. 19, lines 39-45, etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Koka in view of Launer or Haller, with the coil and interface unit sending evoked data to the processor for analysis, and sends commands to the implant to record data with the electrodes, as taught by Faltys, since it would provide the predictable results of allowing the computing device to control the testing of the implant and directly receive evoked data from the implant to know if the cochlear system is stimulating the patient, and/or as a redundant means to test the stimulation and receive the data to confirm/corroborate the other testing data.
Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koka et al in view of Launer or Haller. Koka et al in view of Launer or Haller disclose the claimed invention except for the base having an audio amplifier configured to amplify the acoustic stimulation before it is delivered, the computing module having a fingerprint scanner configured to authenticate a user of the system, or the computing module having a barcode scanner configured to scan for an activation code of one or more components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed (and is admitted prior art as the applicant has not specifically pointed out the errors in the examiner’s findings and/or provided evidence of non-obviousness) to have modified the system and method as taught by Koka et al in view of Launer or Haller, to include the base having an audio amplifier configured to amplify the acoustic stimulation before it is delivered or the computing module having a fingerprint scanner configured to authenticate a user of the system or a barcode scanner configured to scan for an activation code, as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03), since it would provide the predictable results of: amplifying and changing the audio signal to a level that can be heard by the patient and allows for changing of the amplitude of the signal for testing; allowing only authorized users to make changes or use the diagnostic and stimulation device; and allowing the system and method to quickly read and identify additional different parts/elements or procedures used with the computing device to implement the parts/elements/procedures into the diagnostic and stimulation systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations from claim 20 were added to claim 1, however the applicant has not addressed the previously 103 rejection of claim 20 and/or why Koka et al (WO2017/065809) in view of Launer (9044608), or Koka et al in view of Haller do not meet the limitations of newly amended claim 1 (original claim 20). Therefore, the rejection still stands.
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 George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is (571)272-4945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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.
/George R Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 8/26/26
Prosecution Insights