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 Amendment
The amendment, filed 11/03/2023, has been entered. The examiner notes claims 1-20 are pending with claims 18-20 being withdrawn, without traverse, from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
There are new 35 USC 112 rejections in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant has amended the specification to remove the hyperlink. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to claim objection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant has amended the claim to overcome the claim objection. The claim objection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 12-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the antecedent basis issue of claim 12. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 12-17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-11, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. The examiner agrees with the applicant that the prior art references used in the previous office action fail to teach the amended limitation requiring the package to enclose the catheter and that the package comprises a cavity that entirely accommodates the catheter. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Juster (US 3750875 A).
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art references fail to teach the printed battery is within a hub or strain relief and also forms and defines the hub or strain relief, the examiner notes that this amended element creates confusion as it appears to be a contradiction (see 35 USC 112 rejections below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lines 6-8 recite “…wherein at least one of the hub and the strain relief incorporates a printed battery within at least one of the hub and the strain relief such that the printed battery forms and defines the hub or the strain relief”. However, the examiner notes that the specification fails to describe the manner in which the solid state polymer/printed battery can be both within the hub or the strain relief and also to form the hub or strain relief that contains the battery. Looking to the drawing, Fig. 2 appears to show the battery (item 32) within the hub (denoted by the dashed-line profile), but no figure shows the battery forming a hub/strain relief to contain the battery. Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the printed battery as within (interpreted as “internal/inside of”) to the hub or strain relief.
Claim 5 lines 2-3 recite “…the hub or the strain relief is formed from polymers forming the solid state polymer battery”. However, the examiner notes that the specification fails to describe the manner in which the solid state polymer/printed battery can be both within the hub or the strain relief and also to form the hub or strain relief that contains the battery. Looking to the drawing, Fig. 2 appears to show the battery (item 32) within the hub (denoted by the dashed-line profile), but no figure shows the battery forming a hub/strain relief to contain the battery.
Claim 11 lines 1-3 recite “…the printed battery further comprises an encapsulating layer that defines at least a portion of an outer profile of the hub or strain relief…”. However, the examiner notes that the specification fails to describe the manner in which the solid state polymer/printed battery can be both within the hub or the strain relief and also to form the hub or strain relief that contains the battery. Looking to the drawing, Fig. 2 appears to show the battery (item 32) within the hub (denoted by the dashed-line profile), but no figure shows the battery forming a hub/strain relief to contain the battery.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 6-8 recite “…wherein at least one of the hub and the strain relief incorporates a printed battery within at least one of the hub and the strain relief such that the printed battery forms and defines the hub or the strain relief”. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim as it is impossible for an object to be both within a container (i.e., a hub or strain relief) and also to be the container. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unable to be determined. Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the printed battery as within (interpreted as “internal/inside of”) to the hub or strain relief.
Claim 5 lines 2-3 recite “…the hub or the strain relief is formed from polymers forming the solid state polymer battery”. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim as it is impossible for an object to be both within a container (i.e., a hub or strain relief) and also to be the container. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unable to be determined.
Claim 11 lines 1-3 recite “…the printed battery further comprises an encapsulating layer that defines at least a portion of an outer profile of the hub or strain relief…”. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim as it is impossible for an object to be both within a container (i.e., a hub or strain relief) and also to be the container. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unable to be determined.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek (US 20170086746 A1) in view of Berg (US 5569218 A) and Harttig (US 20170065767 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ofek teaches a catheter, comprising:
a shaft [Fig. 1 Item 12] extending from a proximal region to a distal region and defining a shaft lumen extending therethrough [Fig. 1 Item 26];
a hub [Fig. 1 Item 16] secured relative to the proximal region.
Ofek teaches a tapered portion of the hub [see Examiner Figure 1 below for interpretation of Ofek Fig. 1], but fails to teach this tapered portion is for strain relief.
Berg teaches a strain relief [Fig. 5 Item 32] extending proximally over the shaft [Fig. 5 Item 11] from the hub [Fig. 5 Item 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek and incorporate the teachings of Berg to include a strain relief extending proximally over the shaft from the hub. Doing so configures the device to have a means to prevent the shaft from being bent sharply or kinked so as to prevent damage to the shaft and/or prevent proper operation of the device.
Ofek teaches the hub comprises a power source within at least one of the hub [0039 “…the PCB 36 can further include a power source for powering the sensor array 30…”, the “PCB” being part of the hub] and the strain relief, but fails to teach the power source is a printed battery. However, the examiner notes that a “printed battery” constitutes a product-by-process claim limitation (see MPEP 2113). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The examiner notes that the power source of Ofek could be made by any method of manufacturing and maintain the structure of being a power source that provides power to a device. The examiner relies on reference Harttig to show that printed batteries are a power source known in the art.
Harttig teaches a printed battery as a power source [0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek and incorporate the teachings of Harttig to include wherein at least one of the hub and the strain relief incorporates a printed battery within at least one of the hub and the strain relief. Doing so configures the system with a flexible, shapable power source that is thin and lightweight to improve patient comfort while also providing monolithic integration which reduces manufacturing complexity and improve device performance by minimizing wiring and connection required.
The combination of Ofek and Harttig fail to teach the printed battery forms and defines the hub or the strain relief. However, the examiner notes that it is impossible for an object to be within a container/housing while also being the container of itself (see 35 USC 112 rejections above).
Examiner Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
350
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 1, where a combination of Ofek and Harttig further teaches wherein the printed battery is part of the hub [Ofek 0039 “…the PCB 36 can further include a power source for powering the sensor array 30…”, the “PCB” being part of the hub, Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”].
Regarding claim 3, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 2, wherein Ofek teaches the hub includes hub wings [Ofek Fig. 1 Item 22] and the printed battery is part of the hub wings [Ofek 0039 “…the PCB 36 can further include a power source for powering the sensor array 30…”, the “PCB” being part of the hub, Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”, the examiner notes that since the hub comprises hub wings and the modified battery is within the hub, then the modified battery is also part of the hub wings].
Regarding claim 4, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 2, wherein a combination of Ofek and Harttig further teaches the hub includes a Luer fitting [Ofek Fig. 1 Item 20, 0034 “A connector 20, such as a Luer connector…”] that provides an electrical connection [Ofek 0067 “The flush sensor 222 is operably connected to a processor of a PCB (such as the PCB 36 shown in FIG. 10) or other suitable component (disposed within the luer connector 20, for instance) to govern its operation and process its sensed data”] to the printed battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”] and provides a fluid coupling to the shaft lumen [Ofek 0077 “…the two luer connectors 20 operably connected to supply lines 240 configured to both provide fluid to and remove fluid from the lumens of the catheter”].
Regarding claim 6, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 1, wherein a combination of Ofek and Harttig further teach a device coupled to the catheter that is powered [Ofek 0067 “The flush sensor 222 is operably connected to a processor of a PCB (such as the PCB 36 shown in FIG. 10) or other suitable component (disposed within the luer connector 20, for instance) to govern its operation and process its sensed data”] by the printed battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”].
Regarding claim 7, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 6, wherein the device comprises one or more of a sensor [Ofek 0067 “flush sensor”], an actuator and an antenna.
Regarding claim 9, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 1, wherein the strain relief [see Examiner Figure 1 above, the combined teachings of the “tapered portion” of Ofek Fig. 1 and Berg Fig. 5 Item 32 teach the “strain relief”, Ofek 0039 “…the PCB 36 can further include a power source for powering the sensor array 30…”] comprises the printed battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek, Berg, and Harttig as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Govari (US 20120123276 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 6, wherein a combination of Ofek and Harttig teach conductive traces [Ofek 0041 “…the suture holes 24 of the suture wings 22 are configured to include electrical contacts to provide power to the sensors 30 and 34 of the sensor array 30, as well as to the PCB 36. In particular, an annular electrical contact 40 is included in each suture hole 24 of the bifurcation hub suture wings 22, with the electrical contacts being operably connected to the PCB 36 and sensor array 30”] that extend from the printed battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”] to the device in order to power the device [Ofek 0041 “…provide power to the sensors 30 and 34…”], but fails to teach the traces are printed traces.
Govari teaches printed conductive traces [0013 “…one or more printed wiring traces positioned on the dielectric substrate and coupled to each of the one or more electronic components”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek, Berg, and Harttig and incorporate the teachings of Govari to include printed conductive traces. Doing so configures the traces to have increased design flexibility, cost reduction, and enhanced durability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek, Berg, and Harttig as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright (US 9076589 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Ofek, Berg, and Harttig teach the catheter of claim 1, wherein Harttig further teaches the printed battery comprises: a printed electrolyte layer [Harttig 0056 “…the printed battery with a zinc-manganese dioxide chemistry and zinc chloride as the electrolyte…”], but fails to teach the printed battery comprises: a printed current collector layer; a printed cathode layer; and a printed anode layer.
Wright teaches the printed battery comprises:
a printed current collector layer [col. 10 lns. 59-65];
a printed cathode layer [abstract “printable (…) cathode layer…”]; and
a printed anode layer [abstract “...printable anode layer…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek, Berg, and Harttig and incorporate the teachings of Wright to include that the printed battery comprises: a printed current collector layer; a printed cathode layer; and a printed anode layer. Doing so configures the printed battery to be a “…a safe, long-lasting, inexpensive micropower source…”, as recognized by Wright col. 3 lns. 4-5.
Claims 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek in view of Berg, Harttig, and Juster (US 3750875 A).
Regarding claim 12, Ofek teaches a catheter system, comprising:
a catheter [Fig. 1 Item 10] including:
a shaft [Fig. 1 Item 12] extending from a proximal region to a distal region and defining a shaft lumen extending therethrough [Fig. 1 Item 26];
a power source forming a hub [0039 “…the PCB 36 can further include a power source for powering the sensor array 30…”, the “PCB” being part of the hub] that is secured relative to the proximal region; and
a package [Figs. 4A-4C “securement device”] adapted to secure the catheter within the package [0041 “…operably connect with and secure in place the catheter 10 once the distal portion of the catheter has been inserted into the patient”], the package including:
a cavity adapted to accommodate the catheter [see Examiner Figure 2 below for interpretation of Ofek Fig. 4A, 0041]; and
a package battery [Fig. 4A Item 62] disposed within the package [see Fig. 4A], the printed package battery electrically coupled with the printed catheter package in order to maintain an electrical charge within the catheter battery [0042 “…the securement device 50 includes two posts 58, each of which is configured to serve as an electrical contact 60 and each of which is operably connected with a battery 62, also included in the securement device. The posts 58 are configured to be received within the corresponding suture holes 24 of the catheter suture wings 22 such that electrical contact is established with the electrical contacts 40 of the suture holes. The battery 62 included on the securement device 50 can, in this way, provide electrical power to the sensors 32, 34 and the PCB 36 of the catheter hub 16”].
Ofek teaches a tapered portion of the hub [see Examiner Figure 1 below for interpretation of Ofek Fig. 1], but fails to teach this tapered portion is for strain relief.
Berg teaches a strain relief [Fig. 5 Item 32] extending proximally over the shaft [Fig. 5 Item 11] from the hub [Fig. 5 Item 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek and incorporate the teachings of Berg to include a strain relief extending proximally over the shaft from the hub. Doing so configures the device to have a means to prevent the shaft from being bent sharply or kinked so as to prevent damage to the shaft and/or prevent proper operation of the device.
Ofek teaches a power source forming the hub [0039 “…the PCB 36 can further include a power source for powering the sensor array 30…”, the “PCB” being part of the hub] and the package comprises a power source [Fig. 4A Item 62], but fails to teach the power source is a printed battery. However, the examiner notes that a “printed battery” constitutes a product-by-process claim limitation (see MPEP 2113). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The examiner notes that the power source of Ofek could be made by any method of manufacturing and maintain the structure of being a power source that provides power to a device. The examiner relies on reference Harttig to show that printed batteries are a power source known in the art.
Harttig teaches a printed battery as a power source [0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek and incorporate the teachings of Harttig to include wherein at least one of the hub and the strain relief comprises a printed battery. Doing so configures the system with a flexible, shapable power source that is thin and lightweight to improve patient comfort while also providing monolithic integration which reduces manufacturing complexity and improve device performance by minimizing wiring and connection required.
Ofek teaches a package adapted to secure the catheter and a cavity adapted to accommodate the catheter [Fig. 4A Item 62, see also examiner Figure 2], but fails to disclose the package is adapted to enclose the catheter within the package and a cavity adapted to accommodate the catheter entirely within the package.
Juster teaches the package is adapted to enclose the catheter [Fig. 1 Item 11] within the package [col. 2 lns. 65-67—col. 3 lns. 1-3], Fig. 1]; and
a cavity [Fig. 1 Item 31p “pocket”] adapted to accommodate the catheter [Fig. 1 Item 11] entirely within the package.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek and incorporate the teachings of Juster to include the package is adapted to enclose the catheter within the package and a cavity adapted to accommodate the catheter entirely within the package. Doing so configures the system to prevent bacterial tunneling thereby preventing potential infection to a patient by enclosing the catheter within the package, as recognized by Juster [col. 2 para. 4].
Examiner Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
368
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster teach the catheter system of claim 12, wherein the catheter further comprises a device coupled to the catheter that is powered [Ofek 0067 “The flush sensor 222 is operably connected to a processor of a PCB (such as the PCB 36 shown in FIG. 10) or other suitable component (disposed within the luer connector 20, for instance) to govern its operation and process its sensed data”] by the printed catheter battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”].
Regarding claim 16, Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster teach the catheter system of claim 15, wherein the device comprises one or more of a sensor [Ofek 0067 “flush sensor”], an actuator and an antenna.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ivosevic (US 20210161446 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster teach the catheter system of claim 12, wherein the catheter includes a Luer fitting [Ofek Fig. 1 Item 20, 0034 “A connector 20, such as a Luer connector…”] that is electrically coupled [Ofek 0067 “The flush sensor 222 is operably connected to a processor of a PCB (such as the PCB 36 shown in FIG. 10) or other suitable component (disposed within the luer connector 20, for instance) to govern its operation and process its sensed data”] to the printed catheter battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”], and the printed package battery is electrically coupled with the printed catheter battery [Ofek 0042 “…the securement device 50 includes two posts 58, each of which is configured to serve as an electrical contact 60 and each of which is operably connected with a battery 62, also included in the securement device. The posts 58 are configured to be received within the corresponding suture holes 24 of the catheter suture wings 22 such that electrical contact is established with the electrical contacts 40 of the suture holes. The battery 62 included on the securement device 50 can, in this way, provide electrical power to the sensors 32, 34 and the PCB 36 of the catheter hub 16”, Harttig 0053], but fail to teach the power is supplied via the Luer fitting.
Ivosevic teaches the power is supplied via the Luer fitting [0110 “…if the collection module and the power source are used with a HemoLuer, a user may connect the collection module and the power source to either a Luer (by removing the HemoLuer) or a conventional tube holder (using the HemoLuer as an interface)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster and incorporate the teachings of Ivosevic to include that the power is supplied via the Luer fitting. Doing so configures the system to apply a power source through a compact system where combined fluid and electrical connections are necessary with a quick connect/disconnect connection in place for frequent assembly/disassembly.
Regarding claim 14, Ofek, Berg, Harttig, Juster, and Ivosevic teach the catheter system of claim 13, wherein the Luer fitting also provides a fluid coupling with the shaft lumen [Ofek 0053 “…fluid is flushed through the catheter 10 by a user using a syringe connected to the luer connector 20…”].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster as applied to 15 above, and further in view of Govari (US 20120123276 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster teach the catheter system of claim 15, wherein the catheter further comprises conductive traces [Ofek 0041 “…the suture holes 24 of the suture wings 22 are configured to include electrical contacts to provide power to the sensors 30 and 34 of the sensor array 30, as well as to the PCB 36. In particular, an annular electrical contact 40 is included in each suture hole 24 of the bifurcation hub suture wings 22, with the electrical contacts being operably connected to the PCB 36 and sensor array 30”] that extend from the printed catheter battery [Harttig 0053 “…connecting the printed circuit board 14 and/or the electronic devices 15 to the printed battery 13”] to the device in order to power the device [Ofek 0041 “…provide power to the sensors 30 and 34…”], but fails to teach the traces are printed traces.
Govari teaches printed conductive traces [0013 “…one or more printed wiring traces positioned on the dielectric substrate and coupled to each of the one or more electronic components”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Ofek, Berg, Harttig, and Juster and incorporate the teachings of Govari to include printed conductive traces. Doing so configures the traces to have increased design flexibility, cost reduction, and enhanced durability.
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 JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights