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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2: “coupler rigidly affixed” should apparently read --coupler is rigidly affixed--.
In claim 6, line 2: “coupler rigidly affixed” should apparently read --coupler is rigidly affixed--.
In claim 15, line 2: “impulse a mechanical shock” should apparently read --impulse is a mechanical shock--.
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.
Claims 12-22 are 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 12 recites the limitation "the relative movement" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a “first relative movement” has been previously recited.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least one counterweight" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the relative movement" in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the “first relative movement” recited in claim 12, “the relative movement” recited in claim 12, or the “second relative movement” recited in claim 12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the at least one counterweight" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 12.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a recipient’s body" in line 6. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the recipient’s body recited in lines 2-3 or a separate body. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the recipient’s body--.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “a resilient spring or material” in line 13. It is not clear if “resilient” is intended to apply to “material”; i.e., if the at least one coupler is intended to comprise (a) a resilient spring or (b) a material; or rather if it is intended to comprise (a) a resilient spring or (b) a resilient material.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the abutment screw" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 20.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergs et al. (WO 2020/084420 A1; hereinafter known as “Bergs”).
Regarding claim 1, Bergs discloses an apparatus (Abstract; Figs. 12-27) comprising: an actuator configured to generate vibrations, the actuator comprising: a coupling portion 1659 configured to be in mechanical communication with a fixture 341/1680 implanted on or within a recipient's body, the coupling portion extending from the fixture along a longitudinal axis; a piezoelectric oscillator 1252 having a first portion in mechanical communication with the coupling portion and a second portion spaced from the coupling portion, the piezoelectric oscillator configured to undergo bending oscillations in response to received electric voltage signals; at least one mass 1253 in mechanical communication with the second portion, the at least one mass configured to move in response to the bending oscillations of the piezoelectric oscillator; and at least one resilient coupler mechanically attached to the coupling portion and to the first portion and/or mechanically attached to the second portion and to the at least one mass, the at least one resilient coupler configured to, in response to an impulse applied to the actuator, allow movement of the first portion relative to the coupling portion and/or of the at least one mass relative to the second portion, the movement substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis ([0065]; [0092]; [0097]; instead of a hinge, a spring can be used; or the hinge can be a living hinge, which is a resilient coupler; [0110]-[0111] also teaches the masses being attached to the piezoelectric portion via resilient springs).
Regarding claim 9, Bergs discloses that the piezoelectric oscillator extends along a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the first portion comprises an inner perimeter of a hole extending through the piezoelectric oscillator through which the coupling portion extends, and the second portion comprises an outer perimeter of the piezoelectric oscillator ([0079]).
Regarding claim 10, Bergs discloses that the actuator is configured to be implanted on or within the recipient's body, the fixture configured to transmit the vibrations to the recipient's body such that the vibrations evoke a hearing percept by the recipient (Abstract; [0008]-[0009]; [0098]).
Regarding claim 11, Bergs discloses a housing configured to hermetically seal the piezoelectric oscillator, the at least one resilient coupler, and the at least one mass from an environment surrounding the actuator ([0041]; [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 2, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests a garter spring or an O-ring as such a resilient coupler as part of the recited actuator. Regarding claims 3-8, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such outer or inner surfaces with such a recess and resilient element as part of the recited actuator. Regarding claims 12-19, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a method that causes such first and second relative movements in response to an impulse greater than a predetermined threshold value, along with resiliently deforming such a resilient member to apply a restoring force, to such an apparatus. Regarding claims 20-22, while this apparatus is similar to that taught by Bergs, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such an auditory prosthesis wherein the coupler moves from a first position to a second position in response to application of an external force greater than a predetermined threshold value and returns to the first position in the absence of the external force.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights