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 Objections
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 “and the extracorporeal vibration generator configured to generate vibration” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- and the extracorporeal vibration generator is configured to generate vibration--.
Claim 5 “the electromagnet is disposed such that an axial direction of the electromagnet faces the scalp” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is –the electromagnet is disposed [[such]] in a manner that an axial direction of the electromagnet faces the scalp —to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “such that” i.e. “an axial direction of the electromagnet faces the scalp” necessarily follows from preceding limitations and thus unclear as to whether this limitation is even required or not required.
Claim 6 “the extracorporeal vibration generator is disposed so as to overlap in the axial direction of the electromagnet” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the extracorporeal vibration generator is disposed [[so]] in a manner as to overlap in the axial direction of the electromagnet —to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “so as to” i.e. “overlap in the axial direction of the electromagnet” necessarily follows from preceding limitations and thus unclear as to whether this limitation is even required or not required.
Claim 7 “the electromagnet is disposed such that an axial direction of the electromagnet is substantially parallel to the scalp” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the electromagnet is disposed [[such]] in a manner that an axial direction of the electromagnet is substantially parallel to the scalp —to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “such that” i.e. “an axial direction of the electromagnet faces the scalp” necessarily follows from preceding limitations and thus unclear as to whether this limitation is even required or not required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act for the following reasons:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). More specifically, claim 1 recites “an intracorporeal unit that is embedded under a scalp” which as now recited is positively claiming the human body. The human body may not be claimed. The Examiner suggests the Applicants’ to amend the claim to recite “an intracorporeal unit that is configured to be embedded under a scalp” instead. For the purposes of examination and in the interest of furthering prosecution, the limitations will be treated as though reading --an intracorporeal unit that is configured to be embedded under a scalp --.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act issue in the base claim 1. Consequently, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act) based on their direct/indirect dependency on the base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 in lines 9-10 recites “wherein the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit and the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit vibrate a skull” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to how “the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit” time-wise, frequency-wise and/or amplitude-wise combines with “the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit” to vibrate a skull i.e. in an amplifying additive/in-phase manner or in a subtractive/out-of-phase manner, independent of each other in time, simultaneously in time or in a overlapping manner or some other combination. Dependent claims 9-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2, 4-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the intracorporeal vibration generator components ( i.e. magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate) and the specific arrangement of components (i.e. the magnetostrictive element sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate) disclosed as necessary to vibrate a skull as recited in claim 1 lines 9-10 as also evidenced in instant application specification as-filed [0021-0038], [0043-0057], [0059-0060]. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to include claim 10 subject-matter to cure this noted issue.
Claim 4 in line 4 recites “vibration” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 4 line 4 “vibration” is the same as, different than or in addition to claim 1 line 7 “vibration” and if different in what way the two differ.
Claim 7 recites “substantially” which renders the claim unclear. The term " substantially " here in claim 7 is a relative range term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim with respect to the boundary i.e. unclear as to whether the term “substantially” refers herein to a value of +/-0.25% of the defined measure; or the term “substantially” refers herein to a value of +/-0.10% of the defined measure or some other value or percentage. Additionally, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree/range, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 20 in line 9 recites “the vibration” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 20 line 9 “the vibration” is referencing that in claim 1 line 3 and/or the combined one in claim 1 line 10.
Dependent claims 2-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification as-filed para. [0009], [0065].
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Koike et al. (Pub. No.: US 20110243356 A1 to discloses hereinafter referred to as “Koike”).
As per independent Claim 1, Koike discloses a bone conduction hearing-aid system (Koike in at least fig. 1-7, [0001], [0009-0011], [0023], [0028-0041], [0046-0054], [0057-0060], [0063], [0067], [0073-0074] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More pertinently, Koike in at least fig. 1, 4-5, abstract, [0001], [0009-0011] discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system. See at least Koike [0009] “embedded audiphone that enables wide-band audible sound vibrations to be bone-conducted with sufficient output power with the help of an embedded intracorporeal unit”) comprising:
an intracorporeal unit (Koike, fig. 4-5, fig. 7, intracorporeal unit 3) that is embedded under a scalp (Koike, fig. 1-2, 4) and that includes an intracorporeal vibration generator (Koike , fig. 4, fig. 7, 3B, 42, 50, [0043], [0046], [0051-0054]; [0046] “vibration unit 3B includes the transducer 34, …is made of a rod-shaped giant magnetostrictive element. A pair of operating point setup units 48A and 48B, which are made of a disc-shaped permanent magnet, is bonded to both ends of the transducer 34” ) configured to at least indirectly generate vibration by receiving a magnetic field frequency (Here, the claim limitation is being interpreted broadly yet reasonably as encompassing both indirect/direct interactions, arrangement, associations, linkages, operation, functions and results. Koike, [0048] “transducer 34 expands and contracts because of the elastic properties of the giant magnetostrictive element as illustrated in FIG. 8, thereby making a tip …of the transducer 34 vibrate.” [0051] “tip position of the transducer 34 varies according to a change in the expansion-and-contraction amount D1. Therefore, the tip portion of the transducer 34 vibrates.”; [0044] “the transmission magnetic flux 33 generated on the magnetic yoke 41 of the extracorporeal unit 2 passes through the scalp 4 and is interlinked with the intracorporeal receiver coil 32, thereby generating an induced electromotive force”; [0051-0054] “a bias magnetic field HO is fed to the giant magnetostrictive element… the tip portion of the transducer 34 vibrates… a change at the tip of the transducer 34 is conveyed as vibration to the skull 5 via the contact 50… contact 50 is supported in such a way that the contact 50 is able to vibrate”); and
an extracorporeal unit (Koike, fig. 4-5, extracorporeal unit 2) that is disposed extracorporeally (Koike, fig. 1, 2, 4), that is configured to generate the magnetic field frequency and to apply the magnetic field frequency to the intracorporeal unit, and that is configured to generate vibration by an extracorporeal vibration generator, wherein the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit and the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit vibrate a skull (Here, the claim limitation is being interpreted broadly yet reasonably as encompassing both indirect/direct interactions, arrangement, associations, linkages, operation, functions and results. Koike in at least fig. 2-4, [0010], [0031], [0043-0044], for example discloses extracorporeal unit 2 configured to generate the magnetic field frequency within 33 and to apply the magnetic field frequency within 33 to the intracorporeal unit 3, and that is configured to at least indirectly generate vibration by an extracorporeal vibration generator 2A, 41 wherein the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit and the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit at least indirectly vibrate a skull. see at least Koike, [0010] “an extracorporeal unit 2 that generates a transmission magnetic flux 33 using an extracorporeal transmitter coil 31 on the basis of an audible sound …with the use of a sound collection signal S2 obtained from a microphone 11; and an intracorporeal unit 3 that is embedded in a skull 5 under scalp 4, generates an induced electromotive force S11 with the use of the transmission magnetic flux 33 coming from the extracorporeal unit 2 and an interlinked intracorporeal receiver coil 32, expands and contracts a transducer 34 made of a giant magnetostrictive element with the use of the induced electromotive force S11, and therefore supplies vibrations corresponding to the sound collection signal S2 to the skull 5 as bone-conduction vibrations”; [0044] “the transmission magnetic flux 33 generated on the magnetic yoke 41 of the extracorporeal unit 2 passes through the scalp 4 and is interlinked with the intracorporeal receiver coil 32, thereby generating an induced electromotive force.”).
As per dependent Claim 2, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit vibrates the intracorporeal unit, and the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit vibrates the skull together with the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit (Here, the claim limitation is being interpreted broadly yet reasonably as encompassing both indirect/direct interactions, arrangement, associations, linkages, operation, functions and results. Koike in at least [0010], [0038-0054] for example discloses the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit 2 vibrates the intracorporeal unit 3, and the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit at least indirectly vibrates the skull together with the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit. Koike, [0010] “extracorporeal unit 2 that generates a transmission magnetic flux 33 using an extracorporeal transmitter coil 31 on the basis of an audible sound modulation transmission signal S1 that is obtained …. with the use of a sound collection signal S2 obtained from a microphone 11; and an intracorporeal unit 3 that is embedded in a skull 5 under scalp 4, generates an induced electromotive force S11 with the use of the transmission magnetic flux 33 coming from the extracorporeal unit 2 and an interlinked intracorporeal receiver coil 32, expands and contracts a transducer 34 made of a giant magnetostrictive element with the use of the induced electromotive force S11, and therefore supplies vibrations corresponding to the sound collection signal S2 to the skull 5 as bone-conduction vibrations”; Also see [0038-0054] “transmission magnetic flux 33 generated on the magnetic yoke 41 of the extracorporeal unit 2 passes through the scalp 4 and is interlinked … the transducer 34 expands and contracts because of the elastic properties of the giant magnetostrictive element … making a tip … of the transducer 34 vibrate.… a pair of the operating point setup units 48A and 48B, which are made of a permanent magnet, is used at both ends of the transducer 34 made of the giant magnetostrictive element. Accordingly, a bias magnetic field HO is fed to the giant magnetostrictive element.. tip position of the transducer 34 varies according to a change in the expansion-and-contraction amount D1. Therefore, the tip portion of the transducer 34 vibrates…Therefore, a change at the tip of the transducer 34 is conveyed as vibration to the skull 5 via the contact 50…a titanium material is used for the contact 50… … is excellent in conveying vibration …contact 50 is connected to the end plate yoke unit 42B of the magnetic yoke 42 with a connection ring 51… in such a way that the contact 50 is able to vibrate”).
As per dependent Claim 3, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system according to claim 1, wherein the vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit vibrates the skull at a frequency lower than that of the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit (since as seen in Koike abstract, fig. 1. 4, [0010], extracorporeal unit 2 is directly connected to an external power source and is disposed extracorporeally (see fig. 1, 4) while an intracorporeal unit 3 is embedded in a skull 5 under scalp 4, vibration generated by the extracorporeal unit vibrates the skull at a frequency lower (i.e. higher power) than that of the vibration generated by the intracorporeal unit. See at least [0010] “an extracorporeal unit 2 that generates a transmission magnetic flux 33 using an extracorporeal transmitter coil 31 on the basis of an audible sound modulation transmission signal S1 that is obtained … with the use of a sound collection signal S2 obtained from a microphone 11; and an intracorporeal unit 3 that is embedded in a skull 5 under scalp 4, generates an induced electromotive force S11 with the use of the transmission magnetic flux 33 coming from the extracorporeal unit 2 and an interlinked intracorporeal receiver coil 32, expands and contracts a transducer 34 made of a giant magnetostrictive element with the use of the induced electromotive force S11, and therefore supplies vibrations corresponding to the sound collection signal S2 to the skull 5 as bone-conduction vibrations.”).
As per dependent Claim 4, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system according to claim 1, wherein the extracorporeal unit is formed by integrating an electromagnet configured to apply the magnetic field frequency to the intracorporeal vibration generator, and the extracorporeal vibration generator configured to generate vibration (Koike in at least fig. 4, fig. 6, [0038-0054] for example discloses wherein the extracorporeal unit is formed by integrating vi a magnetic yoke an electromagnet configured to apply the magnetic field frequency to the intracorporeal vibration generator, and the extracorporeal vibration generator configured to generate vibration. see at least Koike [0038-0054] “transmission magnetic flux 33 generated on the magnetic yoke 41 of the extracorporeal unit 2 passes through the scalp 4 and is interlinked …The vibration unit 3B includes the transducer 34, whose cross-sectional surface is in the shape of a circle and which is made of a rod-shaped giant magnetostrictive element. A pair of operating point setup units 48A and 48B, which are made of a disc-shaped permanent magnet, is bonded to both ends of the transducer 34… the transducer 34 expands and contracts because of the elastic properties of the giant magnetostrictive element as illustrated in FIG. 8, thereby making a tip … of the transducer 34 vibrate.… a pair of the operating point setup units 48A and 48B, which are made of a permanent magnet, is used at both ends of the transducer 34 made of the giant magnetostrictive element. Accordingly, a bias magnetic field HO is fed to the giant magnetostrictive element.. tip position of the transducer 34 varies according to a change in the expansion-and-contraction amount D1. Therefore, the tip portion of the transducer 34 vibrates…Therefore, a change at the tip of the transducer 34 is conveyed as vibration to the skull 5 via the contact 50…a titanium material is used for the contact 50… … is excellent in conveying vibration …contact 50 is connected to the end plate yoke unit 42B of the magnetic yoke 42 with a connection ring 51, which is made of a flexible material in the shape of a ring. Therefore, the contact 50 is supported in such a way that the contact 50 is able to vibrate”)
As per dependent Claim 5, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system according to claim 4, wherein the electromagnet has a disk shape (fig. 4, [0046]), and the electromagnet is disposed such that an axial direction of the electromagnet faces the scalp (fig. 4).
As per dependent Claim 6, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system according to claim 5, wherein in the extracorporeal unit, the extracorporeal vibration generator is disposed so as to overlap in the axial direction of the electromagnet (fig. 1, fig. 4).
As per dependent Claim 7, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system according to claim 4, wherein the electromagnet has a rod shape (fig. 4, fig. 7, [0034], [0046].see at least [0034] “vibration unit 3B includes a rod-shaped transducer 34 and a transducer driving coil 35, which is wound around the transducer 34”), and the electromagnet is disposed such that an axial direction of the electromagnet is substantially parallel to the scalp (fig. 4, 7).
As per dependent Claim 8, Koike further discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein in the extracorporeal unit, the electromagnet and the extracorporeal vibration generator are disposed along the scalp (fig. 4).
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 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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike.
As per dependent Claim 9, Koike discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system according to claim 1 (see claim 1)
Koike does not necessarily require in the extracorporeal unit, an electromagnet configured to generate the magnetic field frequency and the extracorporeal vibration generator configured to generate vibration are provided separately feature in the applied embodiment.
However, Examiner notes that the specification is silent as to the criticality of the separately feature as also evidenced in instant application specification as-filed [0015], [0063]. Consequently, Koike disclosure in fig. 1, 4 of extracorporeal unit wherein an electromagnet configured to generate the magnetic field frequency and the extracorporeal vibration generator configured to generate vibration are provided in a single unit or as one piece construction would make recited subject-matter i.e. “wherein in the extracorporeal unit, an electromagnet configured to generate the magnetic field frequency and the extracorporeal vibration generator configured to generate vibration are provided separately” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of merely making separable what is disclosed as a one piece construction in prior art and also as a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04) given there is no loss in functionality by this modification.
Contingently Allowable Subject-Matter
As per dependent claim 10, dependent claim 10 would be contingently allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
Additionally, as per dependent claim 10, dependent claim 10 is being 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 in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per dependent Claim 10, none of the prior art discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element is sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element expands and contracts by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive element and the fixing plate are bent by the expansion and contraction of the giant magnetostrictive element, to generate the vibration including all of the limitations, features, combination and arrangement of features of their respective base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art US 20110243356 A1 to Koike et al. discloses bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, the giant magnetostrictive element sandwiched between the two permanent magnets with the giant magnetostrictive element expanding and contracting by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive expanding and contracting, to generate the vibration. However, Koike does not disclose the fixing plate and the bending of the fixing plate features i.e. bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element is sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element expands and contracts by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive element and the fixing plate are bent by the expansion and contraction of the giant magnetostrictive element, to generate the vibration including all of the limitations, features, combination and arrangement of features of their respective base claim and any intervening claims
Prior art US 20160112812 A1 to Vermeiren discloses an implantable auditory prosthesis that comprises a transducer configured to be implanted in a recipient which comprises at least one bender element (e.g., piezoelectric element, magnetorestrictive element, etc.) that is configured to deform in response to application of an electrical signal thereto so as to generate vibration for delivery to the recipient. One or more components are mechanically and electrically connected to the bender element and are configured to generate additional vibration for delivery to the recipient. In certain embodiments, the one or more components mechanically coupled to the bender element comprise an inductor coil operating as a counter-mass. The inductor coil may be configured to drive another mass (e.g., a magnet) so as to operate as an active vibration generation system. However, Vermeiren does not disclose bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element is sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element expands and contracts by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive element and the fixing plate are bent by the expansion and contraction of the giant magnetostrictive element, to generate the vibration including all of the limitations, features, combination and arrangement of features of their respective base claim and any intervening claims
Prior art US 20120232332 A1 to Mersky discloses an apparatus for imparting low amplitude vibrations to facilitate hearing via a bone conduction pathway that includes an external transmitter. More specifically, Mersky’s device includes a transducer for imparting low amplitude vibrations to create corresponding low levels of strain in the bone. The transducer utilizes a highly magnetostrictive member. A cyclical magnetic field is applied to the magnetostrictive member, which causes the magnetostrictive member to cyclically increase and decrease in length. The resulting cyclical dimensional changes in the magnetostrictive member (as contrasted with translation or movement of the member) create a cyclical force in a push-pull fashion that is efficiently imparted to a bone via an actuator element. The resulting forces may be utilized to effect conduction via the bone conduction pathway of acoustic waves for the enhancement of hearing. However, Mersky does not disclose bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element is sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element expands and contracts by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive element and the fixing plate are bent by the expansion and contraction of the giant magnetostrictive element, to generate the vibration including all of the limitations, features, combination and arrangement of features of their respective base claim and any intervening claims
Prior art US 20190046797 A1 to Calixto et al. discloses a MRI compatible magnet apparatus insert for use with a cochlear implant, the cochlear implant including a housing with an antenna portion formed from a resilient elastomer, an antenna within the antenna portion, and an aperture within the antenna portion that extends at least partially through the cochlear implant housing, the magnet apparatus insert comprising: a housing portion replacement having a magnet housing formed from a resilient elastomer and configured to fit within the aperture; and an MRI-compatible magnet apparatus embedded at least partially within the magnet housing. However, Calixto does not disclose bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element is sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element expands and contracts by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive element and the fixing plate are bent by the expansion and contraction of the giant magnetostrictive element, to generate the vibration including all of the limitations, features, combination and arrangement of features of their respective base claim and any intervening claims
However, none of the subject-matter discloses subject-matter of as in claim 10 i.e. bone conduction hearing-aid system wherein the intracorporeal vibration generator includes a giant magnetostrictive element, two permanent magnets, and a fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element is sandwiched between the two permanent magnets and is fixed to the fixing plate, the giant magnetostrictive element expands and contracts by receiving the magnetic field frequency, and the giant magnetostrictive element and the fixing plate are bent by the expansion and contraction of the giant magnetostrictive element, to generate the vibration including all of the limitations, features, combination and arrangement of features of their respective base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or the claims.
Prior art US 20170094429 A1 to Bervoets et al. discloses a bone conduction device similar to that disclosed. More specifically, a bone conduction device that includes multiple actuators, e.g., high-frequency and low-frequency actuators. Different transducers, such as electromechanical and piezoelectric transducers, can be utilized for either or both of the high-end low-frequency stimulators. In an example, an electromechanical transducer can be used for the low frequencies and a piezoelectric transducer can be used for the high frequencies. Transducer selection is dependent on the desired performance characteristics of the respective transducers. Bone screws can be utilized to secure either or both of the actuators.
Prior art US 20150312687 A1 to Andersson discloses a bone conduction hearing prosthesis similar to that disclosed. More specifically, a device comprising a bone conduction hearing prosthesis including an external component configured to output vibrations in response to a captured sound and a skin penetrating component abutting the external component configured to transfer the vibrations at least partially beneath the skin of the recipient, wherein the skin penetrating component is at least substantially supported by soft tissue. Andersson also discloses device comprising means for conducting vibrations generated externally to a recipient to a location beneath a surface of skin of the recipient, wherein the means for conducting vibrations includes means for anchoring the means for conducting vibrations in the recipient.
Prior art US 20150104052 A1 to Gustafsson discloses a bone conduction device positioned behind outer ear of the recipient comprising a sound input element to receive sound signals, coupling apparatus to attach bone conduction device to the recipient, a sound processor, a vibrating electromagnetic actuator transducer that receives adjusted electrical signal and generates a mechanical output force in the form of vibrations that are delivered to the skull of the recipient via anchor system, which is coupled to bone conduction device, thereby activating the hair cells in the recipient's cochlea via cochlea fluid motion similar to that disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights