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 in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/8/2024, 6/12/2025, and 4/20/2026 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
Claims 17, 19, and 22-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 2, the phrase “claims 1” should read “claim 1”
In claim 19, line 4 of the claim begins a separate sentence after the period on line 3, which states “The behind-the-ear device of claim 1, wherein the inductive coil has a reniform shape.”, which is the language of claim 20. It is believed that the inclusion of this language with claim 19 was in error and should be deleted. For the purposes of this communication, this language will not be rejected as being included with claim 19, but rather will be rejected as being claim 20.
On page 3 of the claim amendment filed on 6/18/2026, claims 21-26 are indicated as cancelled, however pages 3-4 list claims 22-28 including text. It is believed that claims 22-28 on pages 3-4 of the claim amendment should be re-numbered 27-33, to correspond to the claims between cancelled claims 21-26 and 34-51. For the purposes of this communication, the claims will be considered numbered as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the first elongate side and the second elongate side of the inductive coil each have a length of at least forty (40) degrees" in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is required by the claim as lengths are not measured in degrees.
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 1-4, 7, 9-11, 15-17, 19, 20, 27, 28, 30-33, and 52-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malekkhosravi et al. (U.S. 2018/0289969), herein Malekkhosravi. Regarding claim 1, Malekkhosravi discloses a behind-the-ear device (see Figures 10A-34C, where each device can be considered “a behind-the-ear device” because each device is located at least partially behind an ear of a wearer), comprising: a housing 1602B configured to be worn on an ear of a recipient (“ear hook 1602B”, paragraph [0152]); and an inductive coil 80/82/84/86 located within the housing (“one or more charging coil 80, 82, 84, 86”, paragraph [0153]), wherein the inductive coil includes at least one concave portion formed in a perimeter of the inductive coil (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 2, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil comprises a base arc, an apex arc, and first and second sides connecting the base arc and the apex arc, wherein at least one of the first and second sides includes the at least one concave portion (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 3, Malekkhosravi discloses that the first and second sides comprise a first side arc and a second side arc, respectively, connecting opposing ends of the base arc and the apex arc (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 4, Malekkhosravi discloses that the first side arc has a concave shape and the second side arc has a convex shape (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 7, Malekkhosravi discloses that a radius of the apex arc is less than a radius of the base arc (see Figures 3B and 3C, where it can be seen that one radius is less than the other radius for the opposing arcs).
Regarding claim 9, Malekkhosravi discloses that the at least one concave portion comprises a plurality of concave portions formed in a perimeter of the inductive coil (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 10, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil is a printed circuit board (PCB) coil (“Coil components may be formed by wound wire or a printed circuit board (PCB) type metal trace adhered to either a rigid or a flexible substrate, such as Kapton.”, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil is a wire wound coil (“Coil components may be formed by wound wire or a printed circuit board (PCB) type metal trace adhered to either a rigid or a flexible substrate, such as Kapton.”, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil comprises: a semi-circular base; a semi-circular apex; a first side connecting a first end of the semi-circular base to a first end of the semi-circular apex; Anda second side connecting a second end of the semi-circular base to a second end of the semi-circular apex, wherein at least the first side comprises a continuous concave curve (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 16, Malekkhosravi discloses that the second side comprises a continuous convex curve (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 17, Malekkhosravi discloses a system comprising the behind-the-ear device of claim 1, wherein the system includes an implantable component comprising an implantable inductive coil (“The recharging devices are configured to facilitate the recharging of power source 56 in an implantable medical electrical system”, paragraph [0052] and “Secondary coil 66, which may be a coil of wire or other device capable of inductive coupling with a primary coil disposed external to the patient”, paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 19, Malekkhosravi discloses that the behind-the-ear device and the implantable component are magnet-less devices (“the attachment means of the securing member and the charge module housing comprise Velcro”, paragraph [0246]).
Regarding claim 20, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil has a reniform shape (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 27, Malekkhosravi discloses an apparatus, comprising: a housing 1602B having a concave curved first edge and a convex curved second edge (see Figures 23A and 23C); and an inductive coil 80/82/84/86 located within the housing (“one or more charging coil 80, 82, 84, 86”, paragraph [0153]),wherein the inductive coil has an elongate length with a first elongate side positioned adjacent the concave curved first edge of the housing and a second elongate side positioned adjacent the convex curved second edge of housing, and wherein the first elongate side of the inductive coil has a concave curvature (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 28, Malekkhosravi discloses that the second elongate side of the inductive coil has a convex curvature (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 30, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil is a printed circuit board (PCB) coil (“Coil components may be formed by wound wire or a printed circuit board (PCB) type metal trace adhered to either a rigid or a flexible substrate, such as Kapton.”, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 31, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil is a wire wound coil (“Coil components may be formed by wound wire or a printed circuit board (PCB) type metal trace adhered to either a rigid or a flexible substrate, such as Kapton.”, paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 32, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil comprises an electrical connector configured to electrically connect the inductive coil to a transceiver (“telemetry circuitry 156 may provide wireless communication via coil 80”, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 33, Malekkhosravi discloses that the inductive coil has a reniform shape (see Figures 3B and 3C).
Regarding claim 52, Malekkhosravi discloses a method, comprising: positioning a behind-the-ear device on an ear of a recipient (see Figures 2A-D), wherein the behind-the-ear device comprises a housing 1602B and an external concave coil 80/82/84/86 located within the housing (see Figures 3B and 3C and “one or more charging coil 80, 82, 84, 86”, paragraph [0153]), and wherein an implantable component comprising an implantable coil configured to be implanted in the recipient (“The recharging devices are configured to facilitate the recharging of power source 56 in an implantable medical electrical system”, paragraph [0052] and “Secondary coil 66, which may be a coil of wire or other device capable of inductive coupling with a primary coil disposed external to the patient”, paragraph [0065]); and transcutaneously transferring signals between the behind-the-ear device and the implantable component via the external concave coil and the implantable coil (“Secondary coil 66, which may be a coil of wire or other device capable of inductive coupling with a primary coil disposed external to the patient, such as a coil secured to a wearable medical device and mounted to head 12 of patient as described herein.”, paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 53, Malekkhosravi discloses that the behind-the-ear device on the ear of the recipient comprises: positioning the behind-the-ear device on the ear without assistance of a magnet within the housing (“the patient can choose the appropriate holding feature 304 into which a respective recharging coil container 318 may be inserted to correspond with the location of the implant site of the patient's medical electrical system when wearable medical device 300 is mounted to head 12” and “In some examples, the holding features of any of the examples herein may alternatively or further comprise loop-and-hook features such as VELCRO™ brand hook-and-loop features, snaps, hooks, elastic or other stretchable bands, buttons, zippers, or any other type of holding features.”, paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 54, Malekkhosravi discloses that positioning the behind-the-ear device on the ear of the recipient comprises: positioning the behind-the-ear device on the ear such that there is an angular offset between the external concave coil and the implantable coil, wherein the transcutaneously transferring of the signals occurs in the presence of the angular offset (an “angular offset” between the two elements is inherent as it is of such breadth that it would be satisfied no matter the configuration between the external concave coil and the implantable coil).
Regarding claim 55, Malekkhosravi discloses that transcutaneously transferring signals between the behind-the-ear device and the implantable component via the external concave coil and the implantable coil comprises: transcutaneously transferring data signals from the behind-the-ear device to the implantable component (“Processing circuitry 50 may transmit operational information and receive therapy programs 62 or therapy parameter adjustments via telemetry circuitry 56.”, paragraph [0072] and “Telemetry circuitry 156 may support wireless communication between IMD 14 and recharging device 100 under the control of processing circuitry 150.”, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 56, Malekkhosravi discloses that transcutaneously transferring signals between the behind-the-ear device and the implantable component via the external concave coil and the implantable coil comprises: transcutaneously transferring power signals from the behind-the-ear device to the implantable component (“A wearable medical device may retain one or more recharging coils at a predetermined location appropriate for delivering charging power to one or more IMDs of the patient.”, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 57, Malekkhosravi discloses that transcutaneously transferring signals between the behind-the-ear device and the implantable component via the external concave coil and the implantable coil comprises: transcutaneously transferring data signals from the implantable component to the behind- the-ear device (“telemetry circuitry 156 may receive a signal from one or more IMDs 14”, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 58, Malekkhosravi discloses that the implantable coil is a concave coil (see Figures 3B and 3C).
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 5, 6, 8, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malekkhosravi (U.S. 2018/0289969, previously cited). Regarding claim 5, Malekkhosravi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the first side arc and the second side arc each have an arc length of at least forty (40) degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first side arc and second side arc of Malekkhosravi to have an arc length of at least forty (40) degrees, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Malekkhosravi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the inductive coil has a center arc extending from a center of the base arc to a center of the apex arc, and wherein the center arc has a length that is at least two times a radius of the base arc. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inductive coil of Malekkhosravi such that the center arc has a length that is at least two times a radius of the base arc, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Malekkhosravi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that a radius of the apex arc is the same as a radius of the base arc. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inductive coil of Malekkhosravi such that a radius of the apex arc is the same as a radius of the base arc, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Malekkhosravi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the implantable inductive coil comprises at least one concave portion formed in a perimeter of the implantable inductive coil. 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 implantable inductive coil of Malekkhosravi to have a geometry that mirrors that of the external coil, thereby resulting in the implantable inductive coil comprising at least one concave portion formed in a perimeter of the implantable inductive coil, in order for the implantable and external coils to more closely match to more efficiently transfer power between the coils.
Regarding claim 29, Malekkhosravi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the first elongate side and the second elongate side of the inductive coil each have length of at least forty (40) degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first elongate side and the second elongate side of the inductive coil of Malekkhosravi to each have a length of at least forty (40) degrees, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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