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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the specification objection, the objection has been withdrawn. [0139] of the applicant’s printed publication seems to support the metallization limitation.
Regarding the prior art, applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For clarity of the record, the examiner will match the applicant’s formatting.
Independent Claims 1-2, 11 and 31
Regarding the arguments toward the mechanical brace, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant has not claimed any structure with the mechanical brace limitation. All of the limitations are configured to. The examiner’s position is clear that the substrate made of silicone (e.g. see [0071]) and the insulating material made of polyimide or PDMS (e.g. see [0073]) are configured to perform the functional use recitations. Both silicone and PDMS are flexible, rubber like materials. Both materials are bound together in Ghezzi and thus “resist separation”. Also, the flexible nature of both materials are capable of deforming and thus will provide some form of “strain relief”.
Regarding the arguments directed towards the applicant admitted prior art in the September 2025 remarks constituting hindsight reasoning, the examiner is not persuaded. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant’s response dated 9/10/2025 stated the following:
“The various deposition techniques recited in the claims, including "electro- plating" and "semiconductor deposition," are similar to manufacturing processes such as "weld[ing],""intermix[ing],""press fitt[ing],""etch[ing]," and "inject[ion] mold[ing]," all of which have been held to "impart distinctive structural characteristics. Applicant's position is supported by the fact that electroplating is "widely used" (and therefore recognized by those of skill in the art) "to improve the surface quality of objects, " including "resistance to abrasion and corrosion,""to build up thickness on undersized or worn- out parts," and "to deposit copper and other conductors." See "Electroplating" article, submitted herewith. Similarly, "semiconductor" and other deposition techniques are used to create specific "molecular structure[s] and composition[s]" that have "specific crystalline structures, compositions, and properties." See "Chemical Vapor Deposition" article, submitted herewith. Such deposition techniques, including the claimed "electro-plating" and "semiconductor deposition" clearly "impart distinctive structural characteristics" on surfaces.”
Applicant’s position clearly recognized that "electro-plating" and "semiconductor deposition" techniques are well-known manufacturing techniques in semiconductor field with well-known benefits. The identified disclosure in the rejection below includes both the electro-plating and semiconductor deposition techniques as well known, and the positive benefits of these techniques as well known as well. This is considered by the examiner to constitute applicant admitted prior art. Therefore, the examiner considers that such a modification would have been obvious to PHOSITA in light of the disclosed benefit provided.
Regarding the arguments directed towards the "at least one second conformable LCP layer," "one or more adhesion layers," and "an encapsulation layer", the examiner is not persuaded. Each and every limitation/layer has been addressed in the rejection. The examiner has laid out the material properties (LCP, PDMS, insulative, adhesive, etc.) in the rejection. Additionally, the examiner has laid out how the prior art meets each and every “configured to” limitation. With this blanket argument, the examiner cannot tell which material and/or “configured to” limitation the applicant is traversing. Note: In figure 5, there are a plurality of different subsections of insulating layer 6. These subsections may be interpreted as different “layers” or sublayers. With that in mind, for the rejection below, the "at least one second conformable LCP layer," is the multiple layers and sections of insulating material 6, as [0022], [0047] disclose the insulating material is made of LCP, the "one or more adhesion layers," are any subsection in figure 5 as the layers of the device “adhere” together, and "an encapsulation layer" is the multiple layers and sections of insulating material 6 in figure 5 as [0022], [0047] disclose the insulation layers may be made of PDMS.
Regarding the argument that the Zorman does not disclose the “the pulse generator comprises an energy receiver”, the examiner is not persuaded. [0031] of Zorman discloses “A flexible implantable tissue stimulator can comprise an inductive power transceiver that provides power to one or more pattern generation nodes (e.g., one or more dedicated application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc.)”. The applicant’s printed publication ((Pub. No.: US 2021/0387001 A1) discloses [0247] The stimulator 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 may further comprise: [0248] an energy receiver, configured and arranged to wirelessly receive energy from an associated energy transmitter when the associated energy transmitter is proximate; [0249] the pulse generator 500 being further configured and arranged to receive electrical energy from the energy receiver for its operation. Thus, Zorman and the applicant seem to be disclosing the exact same circuit (a stimulator which comprises an energy receiver and a pulse generator). Note: In the rejection below, the “inductive power transceiver” is the energy receiver and the “pattern generation node” is the pulse generator in [0031] of Zorman.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the pulse generator of Zorman would not achieve the goal of a smaller device profile, the examiner is not persuaded. [0028] of Zorman discloses “The thicknesses of each layer of the multilayered encapsulating structure, as well as the total number of layers of the multilayered encapsulating structure, can be determined by assessing a desired flexibility (e.g., flexural modulus, etc.) of a flexible implantable tissue stimulator.” [0030] of Zorman discloses “[0030] Flexible construction of the flexible implantable tissue stimulator can enable it to conform to various shapes (e.g., a body shape or a tissue surface, etc.) and positions when implanted in the body of an individual without causing rigid points where erosion of tissue and/or device material can occur. For example, the flexible implantable tissue stimulator can conform to an arc from a 0 centimeter radius to a 38 centimeter radius (e.g., average male calf radius, etc.). However, it is contemplated that the flexible implantable tissue stimulator can conform to an arc of any radius that is suitable for use within the body of a subject as disclosed herein. The flexible implantable tissue stimulator, based on the flexible encapsulating structure and disposition of the flexible components, can comprise any suitable flexural modulus.” These sections seem to disclose that the stimulator and pulse generator of Zorman is made to conform to different body locations, including smaller locations.
Dependent Claim 10
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach the limitation “configured to be releasable”. The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner stands behind the position made in the last office action that “The prior art is capable of and/or configured to be removed or released. It may not be easily removed or released, but that is not a consideration in functional use limitations of system/device claims. For example, the brace could be cut with a sharp instrument and removed from the pulse generator”. The examiner also still believes [0657] seems to add structure, which would overcome this rejection (as stated in the previous rejection). Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Dependent Claims 18-19 and 28-29
Regarding the arguments directed towards the product by process limitations, the applicant has not presented any arguments as to which “distinctive structural characteristics” are not taught.
Dependent Claims 5 and 35
The applicant has not presented any arguments against Smith. This section appears to only specify that Smith is allowable due to the unpersuasive arguments aimed at Ghezzi and Zorman.
Dependent Claim 7
Applicant argues “Moreover, Young teaches a wafer-based approach for the "implantable stimulation lead," in which a thin film is processed on a rigid wafer, which is not part of the lead itself. See id. at paras. [0062] to [0066]. By contrast,
the claimed invention has a polymer (e.g., LCP) laminate substrate that may be created without any wafer processing (e.g., by various plating and/or deposition approaches as described above herein). This is not found persuasive because this is product by process argument that would be relevant for a method of manufacturing claim, not a device/system claim. Ghezzi, Zorman, and Young teach the final structure of the device/system claim.
Dependent Claim 27
Applicant argues on pages 29-30 “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's assertion that Maile teaches the claimed "the first portion of the substrate (which contains the pulse generator) comprises a rigid PCB." See Office Action, page 17. As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office's explanation that "a rigid portion" would "allow the rigid portions where the circuitry is to be moved relative to the flexible portions where there is no circuitry" is incorrect. See id. It is unclear how a "rigid portion" would be moved more than a "flexible portion." Moreover, paragraph [0076] of Maile, cited by the Office, clearly states the opposite: "Generally, ribbon section 206 may be relatively more flexible than island sections 202, 204 [that may include rigid PCBs]." Further, there is no evidence that these "island sections 202, 204" contain any pulse generator or any other element that is "configured to generate at least one stimulation pulse." Rather, these "island sections" appear to only contain circuit elements, such as elements "208A, 208B, and 208C." See id. at para. [0073].”
The examiner disagrees. [0076] discloses “Accordingly, when disposed within an implantable medical device, such as LCP 100, ribbon section 206 may be folded or bent to allow island sections 202, 204 to be stacked relative to one another without bending the island sections 202, 204 to a significant degree (e.g. less than a 15 degree deflection between two tangent lines, where each tangent line is tangent to the upper surface of the island section at a corresponding edge of the island section)”. Thus, the rigid island sections can be moved around to different configurations while still staying connected by the flexible ribbon sections. The island sections are rigid PCB’s which is what is claimed in claim 27. A PCB contains circuitry, i.e. pulse generation circuitry.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-26, 28-31, 36-37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghezzi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0091495 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Ghezzi”, in view of Zorman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0254246 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Zorman” and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, and 31 Ghezzi discloses an implantable stimulator (e.g. see [0018]) for the treatment of chronic headaches (e.g. see [0018]. Note: This is an intended use and adds no structure to the claims), comprising: a substrate (e.g. see element 1), the substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein a thickness of the substrate is defined by the first and second surfaces; an electrode array (e.g. see [0018], [0103] “multi-electrode array”, figures 4-6 elements 8, 8’, 8’’) comprising at least two electrodes located along a conformable Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP) second portion (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]. Note: In figure 5, there are a plurality of different subsections of insulating layer 6. These subsections may be interpreted as different “layers” or sublayers. With that in mind, the "at least one second conformable LCP layer," is the multiple layers and sections of insulating material 6, as [0022], [0047] disclose the insulating material is made of LCP) of the substrate; at least one mechanical brace at the meeting of the first portion and the conformable second portion, wherein the at least one mechanical brace is configured to resist separation of the conformable second portion from the first portion (e.g. see elements 1 and 6. Note: The substrate is made of silicone (e.g. see [0071]) and the insulating material is made of polyimide or PDMS (e.g. see [0073]). Both silicone and PDMS are flexible, rubber like materials. Both materials are bound together in Ghezzi and thus “resist separation”. Also, the flexible nature of both materials are capable of deforming and thus will provide “strain relief”); a plurality of electrical interconnections (e.g. see element 4) electrically coupling the pulse generator to the at least two electrodes of the electrode array, wherein one or more electrical interfaces (e.g. see element 4, [0018], portion of conductor connected to the pulse generator) are comprised between the plurality of electrical interconnections and the pulse generator. Note: Element 6 in figure 5 has multiple layers and sections, all of which may be interpreted as a “second conformable LCP layer”) of the substrate is secured to the first layer so as to cover the plurality of electrical interconnections; one or more adhesion layers (e.g. see figure 5. Note: The "one or more adhesion layers," are any subsection in figure 5 as the layers of the device “adhere” together) adjacent to at least part of the first portion and adjacent to at least part of the conformable second portion of the substrate; and an encapsulation layer (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]. Note: In figure 5, there are a plurality of different subsections of insulating layer 6. These subsections may be interpreted as different “layers” or sublayers. With that in mind, "an encapsulation layer" is the multiple layers and sections of insulating material 6 in figure 5 as [0022], [0047] disclose the insulation layers may be made of PDMS) at least partially covering the first portion and at least partially covering the conformable second portion of the substrate, the encapsulation layer comprising Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]); wherein the thickness of the substrate along the conformable second portion is equal to or less than 0.2 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]. Note: The thicknesses are on the scale of nanometers and micrometers for the various layers. All combined they are smaller than 0.2 millimeters); wherein a thickness of the stimulator along the first portion is equal to or less than 3 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]. Note: The thicknesses are on the scale of nanometers and micrometers for the various layers. All combined they are smaller than 3 millimeters).
Ghezzi discloses the pulse generator (e.g. see [0018]) but is silent as to the pulse generator is located along a first portion of the substrate and comprises an energy receiver configured to wirelessly receive energy from an energy transmitter. Ghezzi further is silent in teaching that the LCP layer of the substrate is created using electro-plating and/or a semiconductor deposition technique.
Zorman teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0026], [0031], [0034], [0036], [0046] (Regarding the limitation “the pulse generator is located along a first portion of the substrate”, Zorman discloses in [0026] “flexible implantable tissue stimulator can comprise electronics (optionally, flexible electronics) disposed on a flexible substrate, such as a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) substrate and/or the like”. The pulse generator in Zorman is the “pattern generation node”. [0034] discloses “The one or more pattern generation nodes can be any type of integrated circuit or the like suitable for generating user defined pulse stimulation patterns”. The energy receiver is the “inductive power transceiver”. [0031] discloses “The inductive power transceiver can receive power (e.g., an induced voltage, etc.) from an external transceiver (e.g. a control module comprising the external transceiver, etc.). The external transceiver can comprise an inductive coil and/or the like”.) to provide a smaller pulse generator profile and non-invasive device charging. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a wireless energy receiving as taught by Zorman in the system of Ghezzi, since said modification would provide the predictable results of a smaller pulse generator profile and non-invasive device charging.
Applicant’s response dated 9/10/2025, applicant stated the following: “The various deposition techniques recited in the claims, including "electro- plating" and "semiconductor deposition," are similar to manufacturing processes such as "weld[ing]," "intermix[ing]," "press fitt[ing]," "etch[ing]," and "inject[ion] mold[ing]," all of which have been held to "impart distinctive structural characteristics. Applicant's position is supported by the fact that electroplating is "widely used" (and therefore recognized by those of skill in the art) "to improve the surface quality of objects, " including "resistance to abrasion and corrosion," "to build up thickness on undersized or worn- out parts," and "to deposit copper and other conductors." See "Electroplating" article, submitted herewith. Similarly, "semiconductor" and other deposition techniques are used to create specific "molecular structure[s] and composition[s]" that have "specific crystalline structures, compositions, and properties." See "Chemical Vapor Deposition" article, submitted herewith. Such deposition techniques, including the claimed "electro-plating" and "semiconductor deposition" clearly "impart distinctive structural characteristics" on surfaces.” This part of applicant’s response has been treated as AAPA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use any of the well-known manufacturing techniques for "semiconductor" and other deposition techniques including "electro-plating" and "semiconductor deposition" techniques in the implantable stimulator of Ghezzi to impart distinctive structural characteristics appropriate for semiconductor type of structures.
Regarding claim 3, Ghezzi discloses the at least one mechanical brace comprises: at least one protrusion, at least one projection, at least one opening, at least one groove, at least one pin, at least one hook, at least one rivet, or any combination thereof (e.g. see figures 5B-5F which all have projections and protusions).
Regarding claim 4, Ghezzi discloses the implantable stimulator comprises one or more electrical interfaces between the first portion and the conformable second portion, the one or more electrical interfaces being between the plurality of electrical interconnections and the pulse generator (e.g. see element 4, [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Ghezzi discloses the adhesion layer is applied by vapor deposition adjacent to at least part of the encapsulation layer (e.g. see elements 4 and 6, [0019], [0022], Note: This is a product by process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that such a plating/deposition process would implicitly/inherently result in the same structure as a product made. The burden has now shifted to applicant to provide evidence showing nonobvious structural difference between the claimed product and that disclosed by Ghezzi; see MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 8, Ghezzi discloses the at least one encapsulation layer covers the first portion of the substrate (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]. Note: The multiple layers and sections of element 6 in figure 5 may be interpreted as an encapsulation layer).
Regarding claim 9, Ghezzi discloses the substrate comprises more than one adjacent substrate layer and the adhesion layer is between substrate layers (e.g. see element 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ghezzi discloses the at least one mechanical brace is configured to be releasable and removable from the implantable stimulator (e.g. see elements 1 and 6. Note: This is a functional use recitation of a system/device claim that adds no structure. The prior art is capable of and/or configured to be removed or released. It may be easily removed or released, but that is not a consideration in functional use limitations of system/device claims. For example, the brace could be cut with a sharp instrument and removed from the pulse generator).
Regarding claim 12, Ghezzi discloses the one or more additional adhesion layers are between substrate layers (e.g. see figure 5. Note: Any of the layers may be interpreted as adhesion layers as the entire device adheres together).
Regarding claim 13, Ghezzi discloses the thickness of the stimulator along the first portion is equal to or less than 5 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]. Note: The thicknesses are on the scale of nanometers and micrometers for the various layers. All combined they are smaller than 5 millimeters).
Regarding claim 14, Ghezzi discloses the thickness of the stimulator along the first portion is equal to or less than 4 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]. Note: The thicknesses are on the scale of nanometers and micrometers for the various layers. All combined they are smaller than 4 millimeters).
Regarding claim 15, Ghezzi discloses the thickness of the stimulator along the first portion is equal to or less than 3 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]. Note: The thicknesses are on the scale of nanometers and micrometers for the various layers. All combined they are smaller than 3 millimeters).
Regarding claim 16, Ghezzi discloses the encapsulation layer comprises a polymer (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]. Note: The multiple layers and sections of element 6 in figure 5 may be interpreted as an encapsulation layer).
Regarding claim 17, Ghezzi discloses the encapsulation layer comprises Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Ghezzi discloses the plurality of electrical interconnections are positioned between the first and second surfaces of the substrate using metallization (e.g. see figures 4-6, element 4, [0071]. [0071] of Ghezzi states “The material of the electrically conducting layer may be a platinum (Pt) or a titanium (Ti). Alternatively, gold (Au) or Pt/Ir alloy may be used as a material of the electrically conducting layer 4”. Note: This is a product by process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that such a plating/deposition process would implicitly/inherently result in the same structure as a product made. The burden has now shifted to applicant to provide evidence showing nonobvious structural difference between the claimed product and that disclosed by Ghezzi; see MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 19, Ghezzi discloses the substrate comprises a first conformable layer and at least one second conformable layer, wherein the plurality of electrical interconnections are positioned along the first layer using a deposition technique, and wherein the at least one second layer is secured to the first layer so as to cover the plurality of electrical interconnections (e.g. see element 4, [0019], [0022], Note: This is a product by process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that such a plating/deposition process would implicitly/inherently result in the same structure as a product made. The burden has now shifted to applicant to provide evidence showing nonobvious structural difference between the claimed product and that disclosed by Ghezzi; see MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 20, Ghezzi discloses the conformable second portion of the substrate comprises a polymer (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]).
Regarding claim 21, Ghezzi discloses the conformable second portion of the substrate comprises a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) (e.g. see elements 1 and 6, [0022], [0047]).
Regarding claim 22, Ghezzi discloses the conformable second portion of the substrate comprises one or more layers of the LCP (e.g. see element 6, [0022], [0047]).
Regarding claim 23, Ghezzi discloses the thickness of the substrate along the conformable second portion is equal to or less than 0.3 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 24, Ghezzi discloses the thickness of the substrate along the conformable second portion is equal to or less than 0.2 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 25, Ghezzi discloses the thickness of the substrate along the conformable second portion is equal to or less than 0.1 millimeters (e.g. see [0086]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 26, Ghezzi discloses the invention but is silent as to the pulse generator comprises an energy receiver configured to wirelessly receive energy from an energy transmitter. Zorman teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0031], [0036], [0046] to provide non-invasive device charging. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a wireless energy receiving as taught by Zorman in the system of Ghezzi, since said modification would provide the predictable results of non-invasive device charging.
Regarding claim 28, Ghezzi discloses the plurality of electrical interconnections are electro-plated onto the substrate (e.g. see element 4, [0019], [0022], Note: This is a product by process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that such a plating/deposition process would implicitly/inherently result in the same structure as a product made. The burden has now shifted to applicant to provide evidence showing nonobvious structural difference between the claimed product and that disclosed by Ghezzi; see MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 29, Ghezzi discloses the plurality of electrical interconnections are provided in the substrate by deposition (e.g. see element 4, [0019], [0022], Note: This is a product by process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that such a plating/deposition process would implicitly/inherently result in the same structure as a product made. The burden has now shifted to applicant to provide evidence showing nonobvious structural difference between the claimed product and that disclosed by Ghezzi; see MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 30, Ghezzi discloses the first portion of the substrate is LCP (e.g. see elements 1 and 6, [0022], [0047]).
Regarding claim 36 and 37, Ghezzi discloses the adhesion layer is applied by vapor deposition (e.g. see figure 5 elements 1, 2, and 6. Note: This is a product by process limitation. It is the examiner’s position that such a plating/deposition process would implicitly/inherently result in the same structure as a product made. The burden has now shifted to applicant to provide evidence showing nonobvious structural difference between the claimed product and that disclosed by Ghezzi; see MPEP 2113.)
Regarding claim 39, Ghezzi discloses the at least two electrodes are comprised in the first surface or the second surface (e.g. see [0018], [0103] “multi-electrode array”, figures 4-6 elements 8, 8’, 8’’).
Claim(s) 5 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghezzi and Zorman in view of Smith et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0234265 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Smith”.
Regarding claims 5 and 35, Ghezzi and Zorman disclose the claimed invention except for the implantable stimulator further comprises at least one conductive elastomer, configured and arranged to electrically connect one or more electrical interfaces between the plurality of electrical interconnections and the pulse generator and the at least one conductive elastomer comprises an anisotropic conductive material. Smith teaches that it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0037] to allow current to bypass breaks in the metallic conductors (e.g. see [0037]) (NOTE: Silicon is an anisotropic material). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a conductive elastomers as taught by Smith in the system of Ghezzi and Zorman, since said modification would provide the predictable results of allowing current to bypass breaks in the metallic conductors.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghezzi and Zorman in view of Young et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0144078 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Young”.
Regarding claim 7, Ghezzi and Zorman disclose the claimed invention except for the adhesion layer comprises a ceramic material. Young teaches that it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0046] to provide high adhesion strength (e.g. see [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a ceramic adhesive as taught by Young in the system of Ghezzi and Zorman, since said modification would provide the predictable results of high adhesion strength.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghezzi and Zorman in view of Maile et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0151621 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Maile”.
Regarding claim 27, Ghezzi and Zorman disclose the claimed invention except for the first portion of the substrate (which contains the pulse generator) comprises a rigid PCB. Maile teaches that it is known to use a rigid portion where the pulse generator is located as set forth in [0076] to allow the rigid portions where the circuitry is to be moved relative to the flexible portions where there is no circuitry (e.g. see [0076]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a rigid circuit board as taught by Maile in the system of Ghezzi and Zorman, since said modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the rigid portions where the circuitry is to be moved relative to the flexible portions where there is no circuitry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 38 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. Claim 34 is objected to as allowable as the Ghezzi reference does not disclose the mechanical brace comprising a rigid plate. The examiner cited elements 1 (substrate) and 6 (insulating material) for the mechanical brace. The substrate is made of silicone (e.g. see [0071]) and the insulating material is made of polyimide or PDMS (e.g. see [0073]). Both silicone and PDMS are flexible, rubber like materials. Both materials are bound together in Ghezzi and thus “resist separation”. Also, the flexible nature of both materials are capable of deforming and thus will provide “strain relief”. However, the substrate 1 and the insulator 6 will not read on “rigid plate” as they are flexible. The examiner does not see a motivation to modify the flexible nature of elements 1 and 6 with a rigid plate. Additionally, [0657] of the applicant’s printed publication discloses the rigid plate allows releasability in the system, another feature that seems distinguished over the prior art. Claim 38 is objected to as allowable as the substrate 1 and the insulator 6 are not configured to meet the pre-tension limitation in claim 38, which is supported in [0606]-[0615] of the applicant’s printed publication (Pub. No.: US 2021/0387001 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: For the “mechanical brace” the examiner cited Ghezzi. The examiner believes this is sufficient for the claim limitations as they currently stand as there is no structure added to the “mechanical brace” limitation. For further rounds of prosecution, the examiner is noting that Zorman in [0028] appears to disclose the “mechanical brace” limitation. Additionally, Zorman in [0027] discloses the LCP layer, PDMS layer, and the use of encapsulation layers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights