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
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding p. 8, para. 2-p. 9, para. 2 of applicant’s response, applicant asserts that Shay does not disclose the limitation of claim 1 wherein the ex-vivo device is configured to perform redundant reception of the signals from the in-vivo device in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same signal from the in-vivo device via both the primary antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna. Examiner is not in accordance, as para. [0056] of Shay discloses a modification of the signal to include a frequency modification via a frequency unit. The disclosure of Shay teaches the signal modification module that transmits a plurality of datasets modified via frequency changes. Examiner maintains the position of the standing rejection that, when combined with the primary reference teaching multiple antennae, Shay teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: An ex vivo device in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the recited term “ex vivo device” is considered a placeholder term ascribed the function “for communicating with a swallowable in vivo device”. Neither the term nor the function convey requisite structural elements. As a result, the ex vivo device will be examined as the ex vivo module of p. 4, para. 4 and all functional equivalents.
Per applicant’s specification, the term “uplink” will be interpreted as the transmitting of a signal from an in-vivo device to the ex-vivo device, while “downlink” will refer to the transmission of a signal from the ex-vivo device to the in-vivo device.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisani (US 20120262560 A1) in view of Arneson (US 20080058597 A1), Betesh (US 20070156016), and Shay (US 20200222011 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nisani teaches an ex-vivo device (fig. 1, element 11, 12 as a unit constitute the communication module) configured for communicating with a swallowable in-vivo device (fig. 1, element 100),
the ex-vivo device comprising:
a primary receiving antenna (fig. 1, element 15; [0026]) on the communication layer and configured for operating at a first frequency range for receiving signals from the in-vivo device, wherein the signals from the in-vivo device are in the first frequency range;
a transmitting antenna (fig. 1, element 16; [0026]) disposed on the communication layer and configured for operating at a second frequency range, different from the first frequency range, for transmitting signals to the in-vivo device,
wherein the transmitting antenna is additionally operable as a secondary receiving antenna configured for operating at the second frequency range for receiving the signals from the in-vivo device in the first frequency range([0026] discloses antennae with reception and transmission units),
and a modem (fig. 1, element 170) on the communication layer and. electrically connected to the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna.
Nisani does not explicitly teach a flexible patch having an adhesive layer configured to directly contact a patient's skin for adhering the flexible patch to the patient's skin and a communication layer disposed on the adhesive layer;
a modem configured for selecting one of the primary receiving antenna or the transmitting antenna based on a comparison between signal strength received via the receiving primary antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna,
wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are non-overlapping, and
wherein the ex-vivo device is configured to perform redundant reception of the signals from the in-vivo device in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same signal from the in-vivo device via both the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna, comparing respective signal strengths, and selecting, based on the comparison, which of the concurrently received signals is used for communication between the in-vivo device and the ex-vivo device.
However, Arneson teaches a flexible patch (fig. 6, element 602, [0086], sensor link module 602 embedded in a wearable fabric or adhesive) having an adhesive layer ([0086], adhesive attachment of sensor link modules 602) configured to directly contact a patient's skin for adhering the flexible patch to the patient's skin and a communication layer disposed on the adhesive layer ([0083], sensor link module 602 includes one or more modules)
a modem configured for selecting one of the primary receiving antenna or the transmitting antenna (fig. 12, element 1202a-i, [0115,130], sensor link modules 1202 receive acoustic signals from the swallowable sensor device 104) based on a comparison between signal strength received via the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna ([0130], signal from swallowable sensor device 104 radiates outwards in multiple directions. Path length between the sensor device and sensor link modules determines strength of signal and location of the device), and
comparing the respective received signal strengths and selecting, based on the comparison, which of the concurrently received signals is used for communication between the in-vivo device and the ex-vivo device ([0130], a plurality of sensing elements 1402 of sensor link module 1202, resulting in redundant receiving of signals and comparison of them)
However, Shay teaches wherein the ex-vivo device (fig. 1, element 100, [0035], system 100) is configured to perform redundant reception of the signals from the in-vivo device in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same signal from the in-vivo device via both the primary antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna ([0051], one or more RF sensor devices 110 configured to receive one or more datasets. Multiple antenna configured to receive the same signal on one communication layer, obvious to receive the signal in duplicate using the transmitting/secondary receiving antenna of the primary reference),
However, Betesh teaches a device wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are non-overlapping ([0019,33] uplink channel in the order of magnitude of 400 MHz, range of 400-450, whereas downlink channel may be in the order of magnitude of 10 MHz, range of 10-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication module of Nisani to select an antenna based on signal strength comparisons as taught in Arneson in order to determine the location of the in-vivo device (Arneson [0124]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication module of Nisani to receive signals in duplicate as taught in Shay in order to modify a received data set prior to transmission (Shay [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frequencies of Nisani to not overlap as taught in Betesh in order to reduce interference between signals (Betesh [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 1,
Further, Nisani teaches the device wherein the first frequency range is at least one order of magnitude greater or smaller than the second frequency range ([0032] discloses the in-vivo device transmits (ex-vivo receives) at 434 MHz, and the in-vivo receives (ex-vivo transmits) at 13.56 MHz).
Regarding Claim 5, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 1,
Further, Betesh teaches a device wherein the transmitting antenna is configured for operating at 5-30MHz ([0033] downlink takes place in a 10-15 MHz range).
Regarding Claim 6, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 4,
Further Betesh teaches a device wherein the primary receiving antenna is configured for data transfer operating at 350-550Mhz ([0019] uplink frequency is in a range of 400-450 MHz).
Regarding Claim 8, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 1,
Further Nisani teaches a device comprising a processor configured for at least one of:
(a) providing input to the transmitting antenna; or
(b) receiving data from the primary receiving antenna ([0078]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 8,
Further, Nisani teaches a device wherein the modem (fig. 1, element 170) is configured for providing communication between the processor and at least one of the receiving antenna or the transmitting antenna ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 1,
wherein Betesh further teaches the modem unit is configured for continuously alternating between a downlink mode, providing data to the transmitting antenna
and an uplink mode, receiving data from the one of the primary receiving antenna or the transmitting antenna functioning as the secondary receiving antenna ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 1,
Further, Betesh teaches a device wherein the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna are connected to the modem unit via a multiplexer (fig. 4, element 150; [0022]).
Regarding Claim 25, Nisani teaches an ex-vivo device (fig. 1, element 11, 12 as a unit constitute the communication module) configured for communicating with a swallowable capsule (fig. 1, element 100),
the ex vivo device comprising:
a primary receiving antenna (fig. 1, element 15; [0026]) disposed on the communication layer and configured to operate at a first frequency range for receiving image data from the swallowable capsule while the swallowable capsule travels within a patient's GI tract, wherein the swallowable capsule transmits the image data in the first frequency range;
a transmitting antenna (fig. 1, element 16; [0026]) disposed on the communication layer and configured to operate at a second frequency range, different from the first frequency range, to:
transmit signals to the swallowable capsule while the swallowable capsule travels within the patient's GI tract ([0026] discloses antennae with reception and transmission units); and
additionally operate as a secondary receiving antenna for receiving the image data from the swallowable capsule while the swallowable capsule travels within the patient's GI tract ([0026] discloses antennae with reception and transmission units);
and a modem (fig. 1, element 170; [0026]) on the communication layer and. electrically connected to the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna.
Nisani does not explicitly disclose a flexible patch having an adhesive layer configured to directly contact a patient's skin for adhering the flexible patch to the patient's skin and a communication layer disposed on the adhesive layer;
The secondary receiving antenna being configured to receive the image data in the first frequency range
a modem configured to select, based on a comparison between respective received signal strengths, one of the primary receiving antenna or the transmitting antenna when the transmitting antenna is functioning as the secondary receiving antenna, and
wherein the ex-vivo device is configured to perform redundant reception of the image data in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same image data signal from the swallowable capsule via both the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna, comparing respective received image data signal strengths, and selecting, based on the comparison, which of the concurrently received image data signals is used for communication between the swallowable capsule and the ex-vivo device.
wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are non-overlapping.
However, Arneson teaches a flexible patch (fig. 6, element 602, [0086], sensor link module 602 embedded in a wearable fabric or adhesive) having an adhesive layer ([0086], adhesive attachment of sensor link modules 602) configured to directly contact a patient's skin for adhering the flexible patch to the patient's skin and a communication layer disposed on the adhesive layer ([0083], sensor link module 602 includes one or more modules)
a modem configured to select, based on a comparison between respective received signal strengths, one of the primary receiving antenna or the transmitting antenna when the transmitting antenna is functioning as the secondary receiving antenna (fig. 12, element 1202a-i, [0115,130], sensor link modules 1202 receive acoustic signals from the swallowable sensor device 104; [0130], signal from swallowable sensor device 104 radiates outwards in multiple directions. Path length between the sensor device and sensor link modules determines strength of signal and location of the device), and
wherein the ex-vivo device is configured to perform redundant reception of the communication signals from the swallowable capsule using both the primary and secondary receiving antennas ([0130], a plurality of sensing elements 1402 of sensor link module 1202, resulting in redundant receiving of signals).
However, Betesh teaches a device wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are non-overlapping ([0019,33] uplink channel in the order of magnitude of 400 MHz, range of 400-450, whereas downlink channel may be in the order of magnitude of 10 MHz, range of 10-15).
However, Shay teaches The secondary receiving antenna being configured to receive the image data in the first frequency range ([0051], one or more RF sensor devices 110 configured to receive one or more datasets. Multiple antenna configured to receive the same signal on one communication layer, obvious to receive the signal in duplicate using the transmitting/secondary receiving antenna of the primary reference);
image data in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same image data signal from the swallowable capsule via both the primary receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna when functioning as the secondary receiving antenna, comparing respective received image data signal strengths, and selecting, based on the comparison, which of the concurrently received image data signals is used for communication between the swallowable capsule and the ex-vivo device ([0051], one or more RF sensor devices 110 configured to receive one or more datasets. Multiple antenna configured to receive the same signal on one communication layer, obvious to receive the signal in duplicate using the transmitting/secondary receiving antenna of the primary reference).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication module of Nisani to select an antenna based on signal strength comparisons as taught in Arneson in order to determine the location of the in-vivo device (Arneson [0124]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frequencies of Nisani to not overlap as taught in Betesh in order to reduce interference between signals (Betesh [0033]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication module of Nisani to receive signals in duplicate as taught in Shay in order to modify a received data set prior to transmission (Shay [0051]).
Regarding Claim 26, Nisani teaches an ex-vivo device (fig. 1, element 11, 12 as a unit constitute the communication module) configured for communicating with a swallowable capsule (fig. 1, element 100),
the ex vivo device comprising:
a primary uplink antenna (fig. 1, element 15; [0026]) disposed on the communication layer and configured to operate at a first frequency range for receiving an uplink signal from the swallowable capsule while the swallowable capsule travels within a patient's GI tract, wherein the uplink signal from the swallowable capsule is in the first frequency range;
and a downlink antenna (fig. 1, element 16; [0026]) disposed on the communication layer and configured to operate at a second frequency range, different from the first frequency range,
to at least one of:
transmit a downlink signal to the swallowable capsule while the swallowable capsule travels within the patient's GI tract ([0026] discloses antennae with reception and transmission units);
additionally operate as a secondary uplink antenna configured to receive the uplink signal from the swallowable capsule in the first frequency range ([0026] discloses antennae with reception and transmission units);
Nisani does not explicitly teach a flexible patch having an adhesive layer configured to directly contact a patient's skin for adhering the flexible patch to the patient's skin and a communication layer disposed on the adhesive layer;
wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are non-overlapping, and
wherein the ex-vivo device is configured to perform redundant reception of the uplink signal in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same uplink signal from the swallowable capsule via both the primary uplink antenna and the downlink antenna when the downlink antenna is functioning as the secondary uplink antenna, comparing respective uplink signal strengths, and selecting, based on the comparison, which of the concurrently received uplink signals is used for communication between the swallowable capsule and the ex-vivo device.
However, Arneson teaches a flexible patch (fig. 6, element 602, [0086], sensor link module 602 embedded in a wearable fabric or adhesive) having an adhesive layer ([0086], adhesive attachment of sensor link modules 602) configured to directly contact a patient's skin for adhering the flexible patch to the patient's skin and a communication layer disposed on the adhesive layer ([0083], sensor link module 602 includes one or more modules);
comparing respective uplink signal strengths, and selecting, based on the comparison, which of the concurrently received uplink signals is used for communication between the swallowable capsule and the ex-vivo device ([0130], signal from swallowable sensor device 104 radiates outwards in multiple directions. Path length between the sensor device and sensor link modules determines strength of signal and location of the device), and
wherein the ex-vivo device is configured to perform redundant reception of the communication signals from the swallowable capsule using both the primary and secondary uplink antennas ([0130], a plurality of sensing elements 1402 of sensor link module 1202, resulting in redundant receiving of signals).
However, Shay teaches wherein the ex-vivo device (fig. 1, element 100, [0035], system 100) is configured to perform redundant reception of the uplink signal in the first frequency range by concurrently receiving the same uplink signal from the swallowable capsule via both the primary uplink antenna and the downlink antenna when the downlink antenna is functioning as the secondary uplink antenna ([0051], one or more RF sensor devices 110 configured to receive one or more datasets. Multiple antenna configured to receive the same signal on one communication layer, obvious to receive the signal in duplicate using the transmitting/secondary receiving antenna of the primary reference).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication module of Nisani to receive signals in duplicate as taught in Shay in order to modify a received data set prior to transmission (Shay [0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication module of Nisani to select an antenna based on signal strength comparisons as taught in Arneson in order to determine the location of the in-vivo device (Arneson [0124]).
However, Betesh teaches a device wherein the first frequency range and the second frequency range are non-overlapping ([0019,33] uplink channel in the order of magnitude of 400 MHz, range of 400-450, whereas downlink channel may be in the order of magnitude of 10 MHz, range of 10-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frequencies of Nisani to not overlap as taught in Betesh in order to reduce interference between signals (Betesh [0033]).
Regarding Claim 27, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay and Betesh teaches the ex vivo device according to Claim 26,
Nisani teaches a device further comprising a modem (fig. 1, element 170) on the communication layer and electrically connected to the receiving and transmitting antennas, the modem configured to cause one of the primary or secondary uplink antennas to receive the same uplink signal from the swallowable capsule
While Arneson teaches that this configuration is based on the comparison ([0130], signal from swallowable sensor device 104 radiates outwards in multiple directions. Path length between the sensor device and sensor link modules determines strength of signal and location of the device).
Regarding claim 28, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches The ex-vivo device according to Claim 1,
Further, Nisani teaches the device wherein the transmitting antenna includes a coil antenna extending circumferentially around the communication layer ([0042], antenna 276 may be the primary coil that may induce energy).
Regarding claim 30, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches The ex-vivo device according to Claim 25,
Further, Nisani teaches the device wherein the transmitting antenna includes a coil antenna extending circumferentially around the communication layer ([0042], antenna 276 may be the primary coil that may induce energy).
Regarding claim 32, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches The ex-vivo device according to Claim 26,
Further, Nisani teaches the device wherein the transmitting antenna includes a coil antenna extending circumferentially around the communication layer ([0042], antenna 276 may be the primary coil that may induce energy).
Claim(s) s 29, 31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh as applied to claims 1, 25, 26 above, and further in view of Koide (US 20110285835 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches The ex-vivo device according to Claim 1,
Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh does not explicitly teach the device wherein the primary receiving antenna includes a monopole antenna disposed on the communication layer, and the transmitting antenna extends around the primary receiving antenna.
However, Koide teaches the device wherein the primary receiving antenna (fig. 6, element A1, [0034], receiving antenna A1) includes a monopole antenna disposed on the communication layer, and the transmitting antenna (fig. 7, element A2, [0034], antenna A2 is coiled around the antenna A1) extends around the primary receiving antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver of Nisani to include an antenna coiled around the other as taught in Koide in order to increase the efficacy of power supply (Koide [0042]).
Regarding claim 31, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches The ex-vivo device according to Claim 25,
Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh does not explicitly teach the device wherein the primary receiving antenna includes a monopole antenna disposed on the communication layer, and the transmitting antenna extends around the primary receiving antenna.
However, Koide teaches the device wherein the primary receiving antenna (fig. 6, element A1, [0034], receiving antenna A1) includes a monopole antenna disposed on the communication layer, and the transmitting antenna (fig. 7, element A2, [0034], antenna A2 is coiled around the antenna A1) extends around the primary receiving antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver of Nisani to include an antenna coiled around the other as taught in Koide in order to increase the efficacy of power supply (Koide [0042]).
Regarding claim 33, Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh teaches The ex-vivo device according to Claim 26,
Nisani in view of Arneson, Shay, and Betesh does not explicitly teach the device wherein the primary receiving antenna includes a monopole antenna disposed on the communication layer, and the transmitting antenna extends around the primary receiving antenna.
However, Koide teaches the device wherein the primary receiving antenna (fig. 6, element A1, [0034], receiving antenna A1) includes a monopole antenna disposed on the communication layer, and the transmitting antenna (fig. 7, element A2, [0034], antenna A2 is coiled around the antenna A1) extends around the primary receiving antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver of Nisani to include an antenna coiled around the other as taught in Koide in order to increase the efficacy of power supply (Koide [0042]).
Conclusion
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 TIMOTHY TUAN LUU whose telephone number is (703)756-4592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Friday.
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, Michael Carey can be reached on 5712707235. 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.
/TIMOTHY TUAN LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights