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 with traverse of Group I, (claims 1-6 and 15-30) in the reply filed on 6/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no substantial burden involved in a search and examination of all the pending claims. This is not found persuasive because a different and distinct search must be made for each Grouping; thereby causing a substantial burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/16/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/27/25, 4/10/26 and 6/16/26 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/16/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
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 16-23 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.
The use of “e.g.” is not definite language to define the invention. Also, none of the numerical positions values as set forth in claims 16-23 can be definitely related to a head of a subject since the corresponding head portion that these numbers define have not been provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goorevich et al. (US 2014/0105434 A1).
Re claim 1: Goorevich et al. teaches a method for stimulating the perception of hearing in a subject (using a hybrid auditory prosthesis having at least first and a second hearing stimulators of different types, paragraph [0026]), comprising:
receiving sound signals representative of multi-channel sound (by use of sound input elements (324A, 324B), paragraph [0079], figures 3, 4A);
generating multi-channel electrical stimulation signals based on the sound signals (by the conversion of the sound signals to electrical signals (paragraph [0079]) and configured to produce electrical signals causing electrical stimulation of hearing perception in a subject, including lateralization of hearing perception, when coupled to at least two electrical stimulation electrodes positioned at spaced-apart locations with respect to a head of the subject (by use of an electrode assembly (218, 318E, figure 3, 4A that as discussed in paragraph [0071] can included electrodes (248)); and
generating bone conduction stimulation signals (figures 3, 4A) based on the sound signals and configured to produce vibrations causing bone conduction stimulation (mechanical stimulation, paragraphs [0080-0083]) of hearing perception in the subject, when coupled to at least one bone conduction stimulation transducer positioned with respect to the head of the subject.
Re claim 15: note that there is more than electrical stimulation signal formed (paragraph [0071], “electrical stimulation signals”) which distinction between each would be based on at least the level of each of these signals as set forth by the language “one or more of”
Re claim 29: see teaching in paragraph [0080] in which the electrical stimulation is for high frequencies and the mechanical stimulation(bone conduction) is for low frequencies satisfying those features as set forth.
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.
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(s) 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorevich et al. in view of Koka et al. (US 11,918,411 B1).
Re claims 16, 18, 20 and 22: The teaching of Goorevich et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This reference does not teach placing electrode on different locations adjacent a subject’s head mastoid. Koka et al. teaches in a similar environment to place electrical stimulate electrodes adjacent each, left and right ear of a user close to intracochlear locations forming a bilateral configuration (column 2, lines 33-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a teaching into the arrangement of Goorevich et al. to predictably provide a bilateral configuration of electrodes. Additionally, since no clear location can be given to the numerical position values of 3:00, 9:00, 12:00, 6:00, 1:30, 7:30, 4:30 and 10:30 set forth in claims 16, 18, 20 and 22 and different portions of a head, the claimed locations are satisfied by those locations taught by Koka et al.
Re claims 17, 19, 21 and 23: the use of a microphone to receive sound signals is taught by microphone (124) in Goorevich et al. which when used as a bilateral configuration taught by Koka et al. would suggest of two microphones being used. Additionally, since no clear location can be given to the numerical position values of 12:00, 6:00, 12:00, 6:00, 1:30, 7:30, 4:30 and 10:30 as set forth in claims 17, 19, 21 and 23 and different portions of a head, the claimed locations are satisfied by those location taught by Goorevich et al. and Koka et al. when forming a bilateral configuration.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorevich et al. in view of Chen (US 2008/0107300 A1).
Re claim 24: the teaching of Goorevich et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Goorevich et al. does not teach to place a bone conduction transducer along a median midline of a head. Chen teaches in a similar environment that a bone conduction transducer can be positioned as set forth (See figures 1A along with paragraph [0025]) for low[frequency signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching into the arrangement of Goorevich et al. to predictably provide a location for low-frequency to by applied to a user’s head. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-6, 25-28 and 30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed method including those features of claim 1, further comprising obtaining compensation information for use in connection with a multi-mode hearing stimulation system, comprising: concurrently applying the electrical stimulation and the bone conduction stimulation to the subject; and receiving, and storing as compensation information, information representative of a direction from which the subject perceived the perception of sound produced by the electrical stimulation and the bone conduction stimulation as set forth in claim 2 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed method including those features of claim 13, further comprising generating audio stimulation signals based on the sound signals and configured to produce air conducted pressure wave sound in the subject when coupled to an audio transducer positioned with respect to an ear on the head of the subject as set forth in claim 3 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 4-6 depend upon those features of claim 3/1. The claimed method including those features of claim 1, wherein generating the bone conduction stimulation signals comprises generating multi-channel bone conduction stimulation signals configured to produce vibrations by the bone conduction stimulation transducer causing stimulation of hearing perception, including lateralization (i.e. direction as discussed in the written specification) of hearing perception in the subject, based on the sound signals as set forth by claim 25 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 26-28 depend upon those features of claim 25/1. The claimed method including those features of claim 1 30. (Currently Amended) The method of claim l, wherein one or both of (1) generating the multi-channel electrical stimulation signals includes generating the multi-channel electrical stimulation signals based on the sound signals and electrical stimulation lateralization compensation information, wherein the electrical stimulation lateralization compensation information includes information characterizing one or both of location or level of sound perception of the subject based on one or more of (i) characteristics of the multi-channel electrical stimulation signals, or (ii) which of the at least two electrical stimulation electrodes the multi-channel electrical stimulation signals are coupled to, or (2) generating the bone conduction stimulation signals includes generating the bone conduction stimulation signals based on the sound signals and bone conduction lateralization compensation information, wherein the bone conduction lateralization compensation information includes information characterizing one or both of location or level of sound perception of the subject based on one or more of (iii) characteristics of the bone conduction stimulation signals, or (iv) which of the at least one bone conduction stimulation transducer the bone conduction stimulation signals are coupled to as set forth in claim 30 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488.
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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 7/22/26
Prosecution Insights