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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed amended claims, drawings, and specification on Sept-1, 2026 and addressed all previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and all objections to the specification, drawings, abstract, and claims set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June-4 2026. These previous rejections and objections have been withdrawn. Applicants’ amendment to claims 24-34 necessitated a new grounds of rejection, see below.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Subject Matter Eligibility
Independent claim 1 and independent claim 47 have been amended to include the limitation “stimulate the recipient using the stimulation signals.” Applicant argues that this limitation cannot be performed in the human mind and is therefore more than an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, paragraph 3, filed Sept-1, 2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional element(s) demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A, because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. – MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(a) explains that to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, a treatment must be particular (i.e., specifically identified so that it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception). In a claim that recites the abstract idea of “mentally analyzing information to identify if a patient has a specific genotype” and also recites "administering a suitable medication to a patient" this administration step is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to "apply" the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application. Likewise, “stimulate the recipient using the stimulation signals” with no additional detail or specifics is merely instructions to "apply" the exception in a generic way.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c) explains that the treatment or prophylaxis limitation must impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception and cannot be extra-solution activity or a field-of-use. The limitation “stimulate the recipient using the stimulation signals” is no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of outputting data by the implantable medical device.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant's arguments filed Sept-1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, 10, & 11 are not anticipated by Recker, as Recker does not teach “mixing of the plurality of wireless streams” and “implantable medical device system” limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues that Recker's spatialization processing is performed separately for each selected audio signal to preserve the perceived location of its respective source, and therefore does not establish that the corresponding wireless streams are mixed together to generate stimulation signals since audio signals are individually enhanced and outputted to the recipient.
However, the limitations of claim 1 as drafted require mixing multiple signals TOGEHER. It only requires that multiple wireless signals be mixed to generate stimulation signals. Separately mixing multiple wireless signals into separate stimulation signals for different devices reads on this limitation. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Recker does not disclose or suggest generating stimulation signals for use in stimulating a recipient of an implantable medical device system.
However, as noted in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June-4 2026, Recker teaches “The present subject matter can also be used in hearing assistance devices generally, such as cochlear implant type hearing devices. It is understood that other hearing assistance devices not expressly stated herein may be used in conjunction with the present subject matter” (emphasis added) in [0043]. Since Recker explicitly states that their subject matter can be used with cochlear implant type medical device systems, this argument is not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed Sept-1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 7-8 are not obvious over Recker in view of Swanson, and that that dependent claims 9 is not obvious over Recker in view of Malsbary based on the argued allowability of independent claim 1 on which they depend. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons laid out above regarding the anticipation of claim 1 by Recker.
Applicant argues that that independent claim 24 is allowable as Recker does not disclose or suggest a first indication that a first signal is to be transmitted, a second indication that a first signal is to be transmitted, and that first and second signals are received contemporaneously after receiving the first indication and the second indication.
Applicant’s amendment specifying the timing of the contemporaneously received signals necessitated a new ground of rejection, but these arguments are still relevant to that new grounds of rejection. As laid out in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June-4 2026, Recker teaches the use of Bluetooth and/or another suitable wireless communication technology ([0023]). As explained in more detail below, Bluetooth communication packets contain headers that precede the body of the signal and contain relevant information about what the signal is and what the recipient device should do with that signal. Since the headers precede the body of the signal packet, which contains the data being sent across the wireless line (in this case the streaming signal), if two signal packet bodies (i.e. two streaming signals) are being received contemporaneously, then both sets of signal headers (indicators of a signal) must have already been received as evidenced by Bluetooth Core Specification v5.1 (published Jan-21, 2019, hereinafter Bluetooth v5.1) (see pg. 210-211 and Fig. 3.4). For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that Recker does not disclose or suggest that first or second signals are for use by an implantable medical device in stimulating a recipient of the implantable medical device. As laid out above with respect to claim 1, Recker explicitly states that their subject matter can be used with cochlear implant type medical device systems. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 25-34 are not obvious over Recker in view of Malsbary, based on the argued allowability of independent claim 24 on which they depend. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons laid out above regarding the obviousness of claim 24 over Recker in view of Malsbary.
Applicant argues that independent claim 47 is allowable for reasons similar to the reasons argued regarding independent claim 1, namely that Recker does not disclose or suggest “one or more processors...configured to: … mix the plurality of wireless streams to generate stimulation signals for use in stimulating a recipient of the implantable medical device system” and that Malsbary does not remedy the deficiencies in Recker.
As noted in the response to the arguments regarding claim 1, the recited limitation “mix the plurality of wireless streams to generate stimulation signals” does not require mixing multiple separate streams TOGETHER. Even if it did require this, Malsbary teaches “audio segmentation logic which stitches or interleaves each audio stream” in [0052] as laid out in the U.S.C. 103 rejection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June-4 2026. Further, as laid out above with respect to claim 1, Recker explicitly states that their subject matter can be used with cochlear implant type medical device systems. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 48-51 are not obvious over Recker in view of Malsbary, based on the argued allowability of independent claim 24 on which they depend. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons laid out above regarding the obviousness of claim 47 over Recker in view of Malsbary.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, & 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 recite a method is a process.
Claim 47-51 recite implantable component of an implantable medical device system and therefore is a product.
Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 47 recite following limitations:
“receiving a plurality of wireless streams” and
“mixing the plurality of wireless streams”
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system”, “wireless sources”, and “stimulating the recipient using the stimulation signals” in claims 1 and “memory” and “one or more processors” in claim 47. The limitation of “wireless sources” is not providing any of the method steps being performed but rather is the source of wireless streams being provided to be received by “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system.” For the limitation of “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system”, the specification discloses that the implantable component comprises memory for storing data and one or more processors in [0006] of the USPGPub. version. Therefore, all “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system”, “memory”, and “one or more processors” recited at a high level of generality would be nothing more than a generic computer. That is, other than reciting that “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system”, “memory”, and “one or more processors” (nothing more than a generic computer) are performing these tasks, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or being considered as methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. For example, aside from the recitations of “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system”, “memory”, and “one or more processors” language, the claims encompass a person simultaneously listening to music, a timer or alarm, and alert to the sounds of children playing in the next room. These are all wireless signals from different sources that the human mind receives and mixes based on a number of logic rules depending upon the intent and attention of the person performing the mental activity.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claims recite “an implantable component of an implantable medical device system”, “memory”, and “one or more processors” to perform the abstract steps. These limitations read on a computer implemented system and method and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims also recite “stimulating the recipient using the stimulation signals.” Stimulating the recipient is recited at a high level of generality and does not constitute a particular treatment or prophylaxis. This limitation also reads on the mere post-solution activity of outputting data and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification in [0167] does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Stimulating the recipient of an implantable medical device with a received signal is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by Tsay et al. (US 2019/0239959, see [0007]). Therefore, it does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, and 48-51 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claim 1 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claim 1 above. Limitations “log- compressed channel envelopes…” in claim 9 and further limitations of mixing rules in claim 8 are directed to mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible.
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.
(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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Claims 1-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0003653 to Recker (herein after referred to as Recker).
Regarding claim 1, Recker teaches a method (Fig. 1-5 and [0038]) comprising: receiving a plurality of wireless streams by an implantable component of an implantable medical device system (102 in Fig. 1 and “hearing assistance devices generally, such as cochlear implant type hearing devices” in [0043]) from a plurality of wireless sources (501A-N in Fig. 5, "multiple streaming sources 501A-N" in [0036], "streaming source via a wireless link to receive the streamed audio signal" in [0006]); and mixing the plurality of wireless streams to generate stimulation signals for use in stimulating a recipient of the implantable medical device system (643 in Fig. 6 and “multiple audio signals are streamed from multiple streaming sources…the selected one or more audio signals are streamed” in [0040]), and stimulate the recipient using the stimulation signals (645 in Fig. 6 and “the output sounds are produced using the multiple audio signals.” in [0041]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Recker teaches wherein the plurality of wireless streams include a plurality of wireless stimulation audio signal streams (“Streaming source 101 is configured to produce an audio signal and stream the audio signal to hearing aid set 102 via a wireless link 106” in [0023]).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Recker teaches wherein the mixing comprises: converting each wireless stream of the plurality of wireless streams to signal data for each wireless stream; (216 and 217 in Fig. 2 and "Streaming source 201 includes a processing circuit 216 that produces an audio signal and a streaming circuit 217 that streams the audio signal" in [0024]) mixing the signal data for each wireless stream based on one or more mixing rules (643 in Fig. 6 and “one or more of the multiple audio signals may be selected to be each enhanced using the position of the hearing aid” in [0040]) to generate the stimulation signals for use in stimulating the recipient of the implantable medical device system (645 in Fig. 6 and “the output sounds are produced using the multiple audio signals.” in [0041]); wherein signal data is mixed in an audio signal domain (645 in Fig. 6 and “the output sounds are produced using the multiple audio signals.” in [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Recker teaches wherein the converting includes decoding each wireless stream of the plurality of wireless streams to generate the signal data for each wireless stream (102 and 106 in Fig. 1 and “Hearing aid set 102 is a wireless hearing aid set configured to receive the streamed audio signal, process the streamed audio signal to produce output sounds, and transmit the output sounds to a hearing aid wearer” in [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Recker teachers wherein the mixing comprises mixing signal data for audio received by the implantable component along with the signal data for each wireless stream based on the one or more mixing rules (643 in Fig. 6) configured for the implantable component to generate the stimulation signals for use in stimulating the recipient of the implantable medical device system (645 in Fig. 6 and “At 645, the output sounds are produced using the audio signal.” in [0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Recker teachers wherein the mixing comprises: mixing the signal data for each wireless stream based on the one or more mixing rules to generate first mixed output signals; (501A-N, and 502 in Fig. 5, "multiple streaming sources 501A-N” and “Hearing aid set 502 receives and processes the streamed audio signals and produces output sounds such that the hearing aid wearer may hear sounds from different sources simultaneously" in [0036]); performing one or more signal processing operations of the first mixed output signals to generate processed signals; (643 in Fig. 6 and “At 643, the audio signal is enhanced using the position of the hearing aid set relative to the streaming source such that output sounds include a spatialization effect allowing the hearing aid wearer to locate the streaming source” in [0040]) and mixing the processed signals with one or more wireless streams to generate the stimulation signals for use in stimulating the recipient of the implantable medical device system (321L, 322L, and 323L in Fig. 3 and “Processing circuit 323L processes the sounds received by microphone 321L and/or the streamed audio signal received by wireless communication circuit 322L to produce a left output sound of the output sounds. Receiver 324L transmits the left output sound to the left ear canal of the hearing aid wearer.” in [0026].
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.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker in view of U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0376257 to Swanson (herein after referred to as Swanson).
Regarding claim 7, Recker teaches the limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Recker further discloses that the hearing assist devices suitable for applying their method includes cochlear implants, “which may employ electrodes to transmit sound to the patient” in [0002].
However, Recker does not teach wherein the signal data for each wireless stream comprises current levels corresponding to stimulation signals associated with each wireless stream for stimulating electrodes of a stimulating assembly of the implantable component.
Swanson teaches techniques for addressing impulse sounds in an auditory prosthesis (abstract). The auditory prosthesis comprises: one or more sound input elements configured to receive an audio signal; and a sound processor configured to convert the audio signal into one or more output signals for use in delivering electrical stimulation to a recipient, wherein the sound processor comprises at least one impulse-aware gain system configured to detect an impulse sound within the audio signal and to apply a time-variable gain to the audio signal, where the time-variable gain is decoupled from energy that is part of the impulse sound ([0007]). The auditory prosthesis of Swanson includes stimulator unit 132 is configured to utilize the encoded data signals to generate electrical stimulation (e.g., current) for delivery to the recipient's cochlea via one or more of the electrodes 138 in [0035] (the signal data for each wireless stream comprises current levels corresponding to stimulation signals associated with each wireless stream for stimulating electrodes of a stimulating assembly of the implantable component). In this way, cochlear implant 100 electrically stimulates the recipient's auditory nerve cells, bypassing absent or defective hair cells that normally transduce acoustic vibrations into neural activity, in a manner that causes the recipient to perceive one or more components of the received sound signals ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to utilize the electrical stimulation techniques taught by Swanson in the device and method of Recker in order to electrically stimulate a recipient's auditory nerve cells, bypassing absent or defective hair cells that normally transduce acoustic vibrations into neural activity.
Claims 9 & 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker in view of U.S. PGPUB 2015/0148928 to Malsbary (herein after referred to as Malsbary).
Regarding claim 9, Recker teaches the limitations of claim 4 as set forth above. Recker further discloses “Wireless communication technology such as Bluetooth provides hearing assistance devices with capability of wirelessly connecting to telephones, television sets, computers, music players, and other devices with audio output using a streaming device” in [0003] and that “spatialization effects may become more important to the hearing aid wearer with advanced technology allowing multiple audio signals to be simultaneously streamed to the hearing aid set” in [0021].
However, Recker does not teach wherein the one or more mixing rules include one or more of: a mixing rule indicating that the plurality of wireless streams are to be mixed by selecting a maximum current level from the signal data generated for each wireless stream for each of an electrode of a stimulating assembly of the implantable component; a mixing rule indicating interleaving signal data generated for each wireless stream; a mixing rule indicating calculating a weighted sum of current levels contained in the signal data for each wireless stream for each of an electrode of a stimulating assembly of the implantable component; a mixing rule indicating mixing current levels for each of an electrode of a stimulating assembly of the implantable component based on a priority corresponding to a type of each wireless stream; or a mixing rule indicating mixing current levels contained in the signal data for each wireless stream based on one or more psychoacoustic masking rules.
Malsbary teaches an audio output device that utilizes policies to concurrently handle multiple audio streams from different source devices (title and abstract). Conventional network-connected speakers receive wireless audio streams from other devices on a network ([0002]). Typically, such speakers accept an audio stream from only one source device at a time. Under conventional approaches, if a second audio stream is sent to a speaker over a local wireless connection, the speaker fails, or stops receiving the first audio stream in order to receive the second audio stream ([0002]). Malsbary further teaches that the combined audio stream can have different forms, depending on the selected policy (or set of policies) that are being implemented ([0051]). For example, the output component 240 can include audio segmentation logic which stitches or interleaves each audio stream into a single combined stream that includes components from each audio stream provided in sequence or series (101, 103, 105 in Fig. 1, 241 in Fig. 2 and [0052]), which reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the one or more mixing rules include a mixing rule indicating interleaving signal data generated for each wireless stream.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to use computer memory and the various signal mixing and stimulation as taught by Malsbary in the method and device of Recker to concurrently handle multiple audio streams from different source devices.
Regarding claim 47, Recker teaches an implantable component of an implantable medical device system comprising (102 in Fig. 1 and “hearing assistance devices generally, such as cochlear implant type hearing devices” in [0043]): and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors (processor 104, 216 and 323 in Fig. 1-3) are configured to: receive a plurality of wireless streams from a plurality of wireless sources (501A-N in Fig. 5, "multiple streaming sources 501A-N" in [0036], "streaming source via a wireless link to receive the streamed audio signal" in [0006]); mix the plurality of wireless streams to generate stimulation signals for use in stimulating a recipient of the implantable medical device system (643 in Fig. 6 and “multiple audio signals are streamed from multiple streaming sources…the selected one or more audio signals are streamed” in [0040]); and stimulate the recipient of the implantable medical device using the stimulation signals (645 in Fig. 6 and “the output sounds are produced using the multiple audio signals.” in [0041]).
However, Recker does not teach a memory for storing data.
Malsbary teaches an audio output device that utilizes policies to concurrently handle multiple audio streams from different source devices as set forth above including one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising instructions ([0021] and [0023])/memory for storing data (125 in Fig. 1 and “the audio output device 110 includes… a memory 125” in [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to use computer memory as taught by Malsbary in the method and device of Recker to implement audio mixing steps using a computer.
Regarding claims 48-51, Recker in view of Malbary teaches the implantable component of claim 47.
Recker further teaches wherein the plurality of wireless streams include a plurality of wireless audio signal stimulation signal streams (506A-N in Fig. 5 and “hearing assistance system 500 … includes multiple streaming sources 501A-N. System 500 is capable of handling multiple audio streams” in [0036]). Recker also teaches wherein to mix the plurality of wireless streams, the one or more processors are further configured to: convert each wireless stream of the plurality of wireless streams to signal data for each wireless stream (644 and 645 in Fig. 6 and “Hearing aid set 502 receives and processes the streamed audio signals and produces output sounds” in [0036]); mix the signal data for each wireless stream based on one or more mixing rules configured for the implantable component to generate the stimulation signals for use in stimulating the recipient of the implantable medical device system wherein signal data is mixed in an audio signal domain (643 in Fig. 6 and “At 643, the audio signal is enhanced using the position of the hearing aid set relative to the streaming source such that output sounds include a spatialization effect” in [0040]).
Claims 24-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recker in view of Malsbary as evidenced by Bluetooth v5.1.
Regarding claims 24 Recker teaches instructions ((Fig. 1-5 and “method 640 is performed by system 100” [0038])) that, when executed by a processor ((104, 216 and 323 in Fig. 1-3) and “processing circuits such as circuits in positioning system 103, spatialization processor 104, and processing circuits 216, 323L, and 323R, may be implemented using one or more circuits specifically constructed to perform one or more functions discussed in this document” in [0042] ), cause the processor to: receive, from a first external device, a first indication that a first signal is to be transmitted (106 in Fig. 1 and 506 in Fig. 5 and “In various embodiments, Bluetooth and/or another suitable wireless communication technology may be used for communication over wireless link 106.” in [0023]. Examiner notes that a wireless communications protocol such as Bluetooth would necessarily involve providing an indication of the signal that included information on the signal type, es evidenced by .) for use by an implantable medical device in stimulating a recipient of the implantable medical device (“hearing assistance system streams audio signals from one or more streaming sources to a hearing aid set ” in [005} and “Hearing assistance devices include a variety of devices such as assistive listening devices, cochlear implants and hearing aids.” in [0002]); receive, from a second external device, a second indication of that a second signal is to be transmitted for use by the implantable medical device in stimulating the recipient (501A-N in Fig. 5 and 643 in Fig. 6 and “multiple audio signals are streamed from multiple streaming sources…the selected one or more audio signals are streamed” in [0040]); after receiving the first indication and the second indication, contemporaneously receive the first signal from the first external device and the second signal from the second external device (“System 500 is capable of handling multiple audio streams, i.e., audio signals streamed from streaming devices 501A-N to a hearing aid set 502, simultaneously” in [0036]. Examiner notes that, as explained below, Bluetooth signals contain a headers that precede the signal payload. Therefore, any time multiple ongoing Bluetooth signals are being received contemporaneously, this contemporaneous receipt will be occurring after both headers have been received); and stimulate the recipient using the first signal and the second signal (645 in Fig. 6 and “the output sounds are produced using the multiple audio signals.” in [0041]).
Recker does not explicitly teach the use of an indication that a signal is to be transmitted. However, Recker does teach that “Bluetooth and/or another suitable wireless communication technology may be used for communication over wireless link 106” in [0023]. Bluetooth v5.1 teaches the packet structure designed for optimal use in normal operation, as shown in Fig. 3.4. They go on to teach that all packets include the channel access code, used to identify communications on a particular physical channel; that most packet header carries the logical transport address (LT_ADDR), which is used by each receiving device to determine if the packet is addressed to the device and is used to route the packet internally; that he packet header is always present in packets transmitted on physical channels that support physical links, logical transports and logical links; that packet header also carries part of the link control (LC) protocol that is operated per logical transport; and that the payload header is present in all packets on logical transports that support multiple logical links. The payload header includes a logical link identifier field used for routing the payload, and a field indicating the length of the payload
body. Following these signal indicators, as can be seen from the architecture showing in Fig. 3.4, is the packet payload body is used to transport the user data. The interpretation of this data is dependent on the logical transport and logical link identifiers (sec 3.2.1, pages 209-210). From this architecture, it is evident that Bluetooth signal inherently contains an indication of the signal, including protocol and signal type information. Since these indicators come before the payload body, which contains the user data (the audio stream in this context), it is also evident that if two payload bodies are being received contemporaneously, this could only occur AFTER receipt of the signal indicators (the headers) for both signals.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Recker does not teach one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising instructions.
Malsbary teaches an audio output device that utilizes policies to concurrently handle multiple audio streams from different source devices as set forth above including one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising instructions (125 in Fig. 1, “one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing embodiments of the invention can be carried and/or executed” in [0023] and “the audio output device 110 includes… a memory 125” in [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to use computer memory as taught by Malsbary in the method and device of Recker to implement audio mixing steps using a computer.
Regarding claim 25-27, Recker in view of Malsbary as evidenced by teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media of claim 24
Recker further teaches wherein the first indication and the second indication indicate a type of the first signal and the second signal wherein the type indicates an audio signal further comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive from at least one of the first external device or the second external device protocol type information, protocol version information (106 in Fig. 1 and 506 in Fig. 5 and “In various embodiments, Bluetooth and/or another suitable wireless communication technology may be used for communication over wireless link 106.” in [0023].) Examiner notes that a wireless communications protocol such as Bluetooth would necessarily involve providing an indication of the signal that included information on the audio signal type and communicating protocol and version information.).
Regarding claim 28, Recker teaches further comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive from a third external device, a third indication of a third signal for use by the implantable medical device in stimulating the recipient; (506A-N in Fig. 5 and “hearing assistance system 500 … includes multiple streaming sources 501A-N. System 500 is capable of handling multiple audio streams” in [0036]) and contemporaneously receive the first signal from the first external device, the second signal from the second external device, and the third signal from the third external device (643 in Fig. 6 and “multiple audio signals are streamed from multiple streaming sources…the selected one or more audio signals are streamed” in [0040]).
Regarding claim 29-30, Recker does not teach wherein to stimulate the recipient includes stimulating the recipient using the first signal and the third signal and ignoring the second signal.
Malsbary teaches wherein to stimulate the recipient includes stimulating the recipient using the first signal and the third signal and ignoring the second signal (384 in Fig. 3 and “mute or raise the volume of one audio stream relative to another (384) … when three or more audio streams are received, the individual audio streams can be muted or lowered, raised or subjected to fading or other affects.” in [0065-0066]) wherein ignoring the second signal is based on one or more of a user setting, a location, a time of day, or a type of the second signal (380 in Fig. 3 and “Variations to the volume setting of a given policy can be made based on user input.” in [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to use computer memory and the various signal mixing and stimulation as taught by Malsbary in the method and device of Recker to concurrently handle multiple audio streams from different source devices.
Regarding claim 31, Recker teaches wherein to stimulate the recipient using the first signal and the second signal includes combining the first signal and the second signal to generate a stimulation signal for stimulating the recipient (645 in Fig. 6 and “the output sounds are produced using the multiple audio signals.” in [0041]).
Regarding claim 32-33, Recker teaches wherein the first signal and the second signal are received by the implantable medical device via one or more wireless communication protocols (106 in Fig. 1 and “Bluetooth and/or another suitable wireless communication technology may be used for communication over wireless link 106.” in [0023]) via different channels of a same wireless communication protocol (506A-N in Fig. 5 and “System 500 is capable of handling multiple audio streams, i.e., audio signals streamed from streaming devices 501A-N to a hearing aid set 502, simultaneously.” in [0036]).
Regarding claim 34, Recker teaches wherein at least one of the first signal or the second signal is an audio signal (106 in Fig. 1 and “Streaming source 101 is configured to produce an audio signal and stream the audio signal to hearing aid set 102 via a wireless link 106.” in [0023]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-0136. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm M-Th.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/W.P.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights