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 Species B3 (figs. 5A-5C) and the withdrawal of claims 16-17 in the reply filed on 8/24/26 is acknowledged. However, claims 3, 5, 10-11, 18-21 are also withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim 3 refers to the coupler having a second spring portion affixed to the coupling portion (shown figure 8). Claim 5 refers to a coupler comprising a flexible material and a rigid portion (associated with either figure 9F, Spec par [0084]). Claims 10-11 refer to first and second springs (associated with figures 9F-9G). Claims 18-21 refer to a coupler configured to allow radial relative movements in one direction and inhibit non-radial relative moments in another (associated with figure 3A-3B, spec par [0063]). Since the elected species do not have the limitations described above, claims 3, 5, 10-11, and 18-21 have been withdrawn.
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 1, 2, 4, 14-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “peripheral portion comprises an outer perimeter of the piezoelectric oscillator” renders the claim unclear. It is not clear how the peripheral portion would comprise the outer perimeter of the piezoelectric oscillator, when the species elected (figs 5A-5B) show that the peripheral portion (interpreted as the outer most portion) of the apparatus would consist of both the outer perimeter of the piezo in connection with the coupler (fig 5A, element 450 – noted as the coupler).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskens (US 2017/0318399) in view of Miyoshi (WO 2013/047872)
Regarding claim 1, Meskens teaches an apparatus comprising:
an actuator configured to generate vibrations (Paragraph [0043] “the vibrating actuator 552”), the actuator comprising:
a coupling portion configured to be in operative communication with a fixture implanted on or within a recipient’s body (paragraph [0035] “Plate screw 356 is used to secure plate assembly 352 to bone fixture 341.” The examiner notes the coupling portion as element 356 shown to be in communication with a fixture on or within a recipient’s body (element 341) in figure 5.).
the piezoelectric oscillator configured to undergo bending oscillations in response to received electric voltage signals (paragraph [0043] “the piezoelectric components 555 flex upon the exposure of an electrical current thereto, thus moving the counterweight 553.”)
at least one mass in mechanical communication with the peripheral portion, the at least one mass configured to move in response to the bending oscillations of the piezo electric oscillator (Paragraph [0043] “the vibrating actuator 552 includes a so-called counterweight/mass 553 that is supported by piezoelectric components.”)
a fixture (The examiner notes fig. 5, element 341 as the fixture.)
However, Meskens fails to teach
substantially planar piezoelectric oscillator having a central portion substantially surrounding and in mechanical communication with the coupling portion and a peripheral portion spaced from the coupling portion,
at least one coupler mechanically attached at least to the peripheral portion
and the at least one mass, the at least one coupler configured to allow expansion and contraction of the peripheral portion along a first direction substantially parallel to the piezoelectric oscillator and to inhibit movement of the peripheral portion relative to the at least one mass along a second direction substantially perpendicular to the piezoelectric oscillator.
Miyoshi teaches a substantially planar piezoelectric with a coupler mechanically attached to the peripheral portion that inhibits the movement of the peripheral portion of the piezoelectric actuator:
a substantially planar piezoelectric oscillator having a central portion substantially surrounding and in mechanical communication with the coupling portion (The examiner is modifying the piezoelectric (fig 5, element 555) of Meskins to have the coupling portion taught by Miyoshi, which would put the central portion of the piezo in mechanical communication with a coupling portion.) and a peripheral portion spaced from the coupling portion (The examiner interprets the outermost perimeter of the piezo as the peripheral portion.),
and at least one coupler mechanically attached at least to the peripheral portion (The examiner notes in figure 13, element 44 is on the peripheral portions of the piezo film 10.)
the at least one mass (The examiner notes Meskens teaches at least one mass), the at least one coupler (pg 3, par 8 “the piezoelectric film 10 has a peripheral portion pressed against the edge of the case 42 by a ring 44” The examiner notes element 44 as the at least one coupler)
configured to allow expansion and contraction of the peripheral portion along a first direction substantially parallel to the piezoelectric oscillator and to inhibit movement of the peripheral portion (The examiner notes since coupler element 44 presses the piezo down it will inhibit the movement of the peripheral portion)
relative to at least one mass along a second direction substantially perpendicular to the piezoelectric oscillator. (pg 3, par 2 “Movement in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the film.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Meskens in view of the piezo taught by Miyoshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that it becomes possible to give a constant mechanical bias anywhere on the piezoelectric film, so that the expansion and contraction motion of the piezoelectric film can be moved back and forth without waste (movement in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the film). The sound is converted and generated according to the supplied power. See pg 2, par 6 of Meskens.
Regarding claim 14, Meskens and Miyoshi teach the device of claim 1, and Meskens further teaches
wherein the actuator is configured to be implanted on or within the recipient's body, (paragraph [0050] “the interior space of the housing numeral 554 is hermetically sealed from the outside/ambient environment this can have utilitarian value with respect to implantable components 550 that are implanted in a human being)
the fixture configured to transmit the vibrations to the recipient's body such that the vibrations evoke a hearing percept by the recipient. (paragraph [0065] “a mass moves in an oscillatory manner so as to result in the creation of vibrations that are then transferred from the housings containing the actuators to the bone of the recipient, which vibrations travel along the bone to the inner ear of the recipient, to evoke a hearing percept via bone conduction.”)
Regarding claim 15, Meskens and Miyoshi teach the device of claim 1, and Meskens further teaches a housing configured to hermetically seal the at least one mass and the piezoelectric oscillator from an environment surrounding the actuator. (paragraph [0075] “housing 554, etc., houses both the coil and the actuator, the LC circuit of such embodiments is entirely contained and hermetically sealed”)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskens in view of Miyoshi further in view of Ball (US 2010/0145135).
Regarding claim 2, Meskens and Miyoshi teach the apparatus of claim 1 but fails to teach at least one coupler comprises a substantially planar and bendable portion affixed to the piezoelectric oscillator and a first spring portion affixed to the at least one mass.
Ball teaches a coupler comprising a substantially planar and bendable portion affixed to the piezoelectric oscillator and a first spring portion affixed to the at least one mass. (paragraph [0032] “This moveable subassembly is attached to a top suspension subassembly of a top membrane spring 505 together with a soft iron top lid 507,” The examiner is modifying element 44 taught by Miyoshi in view of the top membrane spring 505 taught in Ball.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Miyoshi in view of Ball. One of ordinary would have been able to recognize that membrane springs 505 and 509 prevent these air gaps from collapsing when the transducer 500 is excited by an electrical stimulation signal. See paragraph [0034] of Ball.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meskens in view of Miyoshi further in view of Goodson (US 6653760).
Regarding claim 4, Meskens and Miyoshi teach the apparatus of claim 1 and Meskens further teaches
the coupling portion extends from the fixture along a longitudinal axis (paragraph [0035] “The portions of plate screw 356 that interface with the bone fixture 341” The examiner notes fig. 5, element 599 as the longitudinal axis.)
the piezoelectric oscillator extends along a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis through which the coupling portion extends (The examiner notes fig 5, elem 55 as the piezoelectric perpendicular to the coupling portion (element 341).),
However, Meskens fail to teach that the peripheral portion comprises an outer perimeter of the piezoelectric oscillator.
Miyoshi teaches a piezoelectric oscillator where the peripheral portion comprises an outer perimeter of the piezoelectric oscillator. (The examiner notes that the piezo peripheral portion by the red arrows in the figure below comprises an outer perimeter of the piezoelectric oscillator element 10.)
PNG
media_image1.png
204
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Meskins in view of Miyoshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that it becomes possible to give a constant mechanical bias anywhere on the piezoelectric film, so that the expansion and contraction motion of the piezoelectric film can be moved back and forth without waste. The sound is converted and generated according to the supplied power. See pg 2, paragraph 2 of Miyoshi.
However, Meskens and Miyoshi fails to teach the central portion comprises an inner perimeter of a hole extending through the piezoelectric oscillator.
Goodson teaches a piezoelectric with a central hole. (col 4, line 27 “piezoelectric crystal 30 are flat annular disks with central holes”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Meskens and Miyoshi in view of Goodson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that having a central hole in the piezo would yield the predictable results of having a connecting element (Goodson fig 4, element 38) to compress the assembly. See col 4, line 30 of Goodson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights