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
Rejections under 35 USC 112
In regards to Applicant’s response filed 10/07/2025, the amended claim 20 has overcome the rejections made in the Non-Final Office Action filed 08/29/2025. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
However, in light of the amended claims, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(d) are detailed below.
Rejections under 35 USC 101
In regards to Applicant’s response filed 10/07/2025, the amended claims 10-20 have overcome the rejections made in the Non-Final Office Action filed 08/29/2025. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks filed 10/07/2025, Applicant argues that the prior art as presented in the Non-Final Office Action does not teach all of the limitations of the amended independent claim.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Jo fails to teach a first light emitting diode activating ChR2 and a second light emitting diode activating ReaChR and that the teachings of Jo are not combinable with the other teachings of Miesenbock, Bach, and Harris nor do they teach the limitations of the claim when combined.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and offers the following clarification regarding the combination of Jo, Miesenbock, Bach, and Harris:
Miesenbock teaches a device for selectively illuminating islet cells in response to blood sugar levels (Miesenbock [0086]), and Harris teaches a system for monitoring blood glucose levels having multiple light emitting diodes which may emit beams having different wavelengths (Harris [0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Miesenbock, where tissue is selectively illuminated based on glucose levels in order to stimulate insulin secretion, with multiple light sources as taught by Harris in order to utilize multiple wavelengths to target various elements of interest (Harris [0024]). This combination results in the Miesenbock’s light source, which is optically coupled to pancreatic islet cells, having the multiple diodes of Harris that may emit light at different wavelengths, for example, a first light emitting diode generating blue light and a second light emitting diode generating red light (Harris [0043]). When Jo is added to the combination, it teaches the activation of channelrhodopsin or red-shifted channelrhodopsin via exposure to blue and red light respectively, in order to activate ChR2 and ReaCh in order to modulate cell/organ function (Jo [0015-0017]), which in the proposed combination would be that of the implanted islet cells and the corresponding organ.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Harris teaches a light source that is used for detection rather than stimulation as recited in the present claims. Examiner respectfully points again to the combination as described above wherein the modification of the therapeutic light to stimulate islet cells as taught by Miesenbock is modified by the first and second diodes as taught by Harris in order to utilize multiple wavelengths to target various elements of interest (Harris [0024]). The combination of Miesenbock, Bach, Harris, and Jo teaches the illumination of islet cells and the activation of ChR2 and ReaChR.
With this in consideration, the rejections as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 08/29/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The amended claim 10 includes all of the limitations of claims 15 and 16, so claims 15 and 16 fail to further limit the parent claim.
The parent claim 10 is amended to include the limitations ‘controlling a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a blue wavelength to activate ChR2 at the modified islet cells and a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a red wavelength to activate ReaChR at the modified islet cells.’ Claim 15 claims ‘a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes generates a first wavelength different than a second wavelength of a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes’ and claim 16 claims ‘wherein the first light emitting diode generates blue light for activating ChR2 and the second light emitting diode generates red light for activating ReaChR.’ The limitations of claims 15 and 16 are encompassed in the amended claim 10 as the first and second light diodes are claimed to emit lights of different wavelengths (blue and red), and the emitted blue and red wavelengths activate ChR2 and ReaChR respectively.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miesenbock et al (US 20030040080 A1) in view of Bach et al (US 20180318358 A1), Harris et al (US 20200060585 A1), and Jo et al (US 20200046996 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miesenbock teaches a method of treating type 1 diabetes in a living body comprising an implantable microsystem implanted adjacent islet cells (see [0086]; islet cells optically coupled to light source)
having a light emitter (see [0086]; implanted light source and blood sugar sensor);
determining a glucose level in a body (see [0086]; sensed blood sugar levels); and
controlling the microsystem to selectively illuminate the islet cells to secrete insulin or glucagon or both based on the glucose level (see [0086]; based on sensed blood sugar levels, the light source will turn on thereby causing the activation of the pancreatic islet cells to be photostimulated to secrete insulin).
Miesenbock is silent regarding implanting genetically modified islet cells under a capsule of or within an organ;
said microsystem, comprising a light emitting diode stimulator comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes; and
controlling a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a blue wavelength and a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a red wavelength;
activating ChR2 with the first light emitting diode at the modified islet cells; and
activating ReaChR with the second light emitting diode at the modified islet cells.
Bach teaches a method for treating type I diabetes by implanting islet cells under a capsule of or within an organ (see Bach [0072]; islet transfer sites include the pancreas and kidney capsule).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for treating diabetes as taught by Miesenbock with the islet cell implantation sites as taught by Bach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for rapid revascularization at the transplant site to minimize the ischemia period between transplantation and revascularization as much as possible (Bach [0072]).
Harris teaches a blood glucose sensor comprising a light emitting diode stimulator comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (see Harris [0004], [0025]; the glucose monitor includes a plurality of light sources including a blue light source and a red-light source which can be light emitting diodes);
wherein controlling the microsystem comprises controlling a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a blue wavelength and the second light emitting diode to generate a red wavelength (see Harris [0041-0045]; each of the plurality of light sources can be controlled to serially apply each light signal at a specific wavelength, light can first be detected in the blue wavelength then red);
wherein controlling comprises controlling the first light emitting diode to generate blue light
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microsystem as taught by Miesenbock with the plurality of light emitting diodes as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the measured blood glucose level and utilize multiple wavelengths to target various elements of interest and cell responses (Harris [0021-0024]).
Jo teaches a method for photostimulation to regulate glucose metabolism comprising activating ChR2 with the first light emitting diode (see Jo [0015-0017]; blue light can be used to activate ChR2) and activating ReaChR with the second light emitting diode (see Jo [0015-0017]; red light can be used to activate red shifted channelrhodopsin).
It can be appreciated that the combined device of Miesenbock and Harris results in a light source which is optically coupled to pancreatic islet cells having multiple light emitting diodes that may emit light at various wavelengths. The combined device when paired with Bach teaches the transplantation of islet cells, to which the light source is optically coupled, under a capsule or within an organ. When Jo is added to the combination, it teaches the activation of channelrhodopsin or red-shifted channelrhodopsin via exposure to blue and red light respectively, in order to activate ChR2 and ReaCh in order to modulate cell/organ function (Jo [0015-0017]), which in this case would be that of the implanted islet cells and the corresponding organ.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Miesenbock, Bach, and Harris with the ChR2 and ReaChR activating blue and red light as taught by Jo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to activate a transmembrane ion channel via strategic photostimulation using a desired wavelength to innervate the target tissue to modulate the activity of the target site (Jo [0015]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Miesenbock, Bach, Harris, and Jo teach the method of claim 1. Miesenbock is silent regarding wherein implanting islet cells comprises implanting islet cells under a capsule of an organ or within an organ.
Bach teaches wherein implanting islet cells comprises implanting islet cells under a capsule of an organ or within an organ (see Bach [0072]; islet transfer sites include the pancreas and kidney capsule).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantation of islet cells as taught by Miesenbock with the implantation sites as taught by Bach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for rapid revascularization at the transplant site to minimize the ischemia period between transplantation and revascularization as much as possible (Bach [0072]).
Regarding claim 4, Miesenbock, Bach, Harris, and Jo teach the method of claim 1. Miesenbock is silent regarding wherein implanting the microsystem adjacent the islet cells comprise implanting the microsystem adjacent the islet cells on a peritoneum.
Bach teaches implanting the islet cells on a peritoneum (see Bach [0072]; transplantation sites include peritoneums). Bach is silent regarding implanting the microsystem adjacent the islet cells on a peritoneum, however it can be appreciated based on the teaching of Miesenbock that the microsystem is optically coupled to the islet cells (Miesenbock [0086]) so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implant the microsystem adjacent the islet cells in a peritoneum if the islet cells were transplanted into a peritoneum.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantation of genetically modified islet cells and an adjacent microsystem as taught by Miesenbock with the implantation sites as taught by Bach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for rapid revascularization at the transplant site to minimize the ischemia period between transplantation and revascularization as much as possible (Bach [0072]) and so that the light source may be activated when sensed blood sugar levels drop too low (Miesenbock [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Miesenbock, Bach, Harris, and Jo teach the method of claim 1. Miesenbock further teaches determining a glucose level in a body from a glucose sensor disposed within the microsystem (see Miesenbock [0086]; blood sugar levels detected by a sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Miesenbock, Bach, Harris, and Jo teach the method of claim 1. Miesenbock further teaches wherein the glucose sensor disposed adjacent to the light emitting diodes of the microsystem (see Miesenbock [0086]; when decreased blood sugar levels are sensed by the sensor, the light source will be triggered to be turned on).
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miesenbock et al (US 20030040080 A1) in view of Brauker et al (US 20050192557 A1), and Harris et al (US 20200060585 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Miesenbock teaches a system for treating type 1 diabetes in a living body comprising an implantable microsystem configured to be disposed within the living body comprising a glucose sensor (see [0086]; implanted light source and blood sugar sensor;
said glucose sensor generating a glucose level signal corresponding to a glucose level within the living body (see [0086]; when blood sugar levels are sensed to drop too low a signal is sent to turn on the light source); and
controlling light emitting diodes in response to the glucose level signal to increase insulin production or glucagon production at the genetically modified islet cells (see [0086]; based on sensed blood sugar levels, the light source will turn on thereby causing the activation of the pancreatic islet cells to be photostimulated to secrete insulin).
Miesenbock is silent regarding said implantable microsystem comprising a second portion comprising control electronics coupled to the glucose sensor and the plurality of light emitting diodes,
said control electronics comprising a controller; and
controlling a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a blue wavelength to activate ChR2 at the modified islet cells and a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a red wavelength to activate ReaChR at the modified islet cells.
It can be appreciated that in the instant system claim, the genetically modified islet cells are identified as intended use of the microsystem and do not impose any structural limitations over the claimed invention.
Brauker teaches a system for treating type 1 diabetes in a living body comprising genetically modified islet cells (see [0125]; a patient is implanted with beta islet cells); comprising:
an implantable microsystem disposed within the living body comprising a glucose sensor (see [0125]; patient is implanted with implantable glucose sensor),
said implantable microsystem comprising a second portion comprising control electronics coupled to the glucose sensor (see Fig. 3, [0104]; microprocessor 28 associated with glucose sensor 12 is the control unit).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for photostimulation of islet cells as taught by Miesenbock with the implantable microsystem of Brauker comprising a second portion comprising control electronics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to continuously monitor glucose levels and subsequently execute appropriate instructions (Brauker [0104], [0125]).
Brauker is silent regarding wherein an implantable microsystem disposed within the living body is adjacent the genetically modified islet cells comprising a first portion comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes;
said implantable microsystem comprising a second portion comprising control electronics coupled to the glucose sensor and the plurality of light emitting diodes; and
controlling a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a blue wavelength to activate ChR2 at the modified islet cells and a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes to generate a red wavelength to activate ReaChR at the modified islet cells.
Harris teaches a system for measuring blood glucose levels wherein the microsystem comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (see Harris [0004], [0025]; the glucose monitor includes a plurality of light sources including a blue light source and a red light source which can be light emitting diodes) and a second portion comprising control electronics coupled to the glucose sensor and the plurality of light emitting diodes (see Harris [0070-0071]; controller 108 is coupled to sensor and can further provide instructions to the light sources 104).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microsystem as taught by Miensenbock and Brauker with the plurality of light emitting diodes as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of the measured blood glucose level and utilize multiple wavelengths to target various elements of interest (Harris [0022-0024]).
Harris is silent regarding activating ChR2 at the modified islet cells using a blue wavelength and activating ReaChR at the modified islet cells using a red wavelength.
It can be appreciated that the combined device of Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris results in a light source which is optically coupled to pancreatic islet cells having multiple light emitting diodes that may be controlled to emit light at various wavelengths.
The limitations ‘for activating ChR2’ and ‘for activating ReaChR’ are statements of intended use and do not impart any further structural limitations over the claimed system. The system of the prior art has a light source for generating blue light and a light source for generating red light and is thereby capable of performing the claimed function of activating ChR2 with blue light and activating ReaChR with red light.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Miesenbock, Brauker, Harris teach the system of claim 10. The limitations as set forth in claims 11 and 12 regarding ‘wherein the islet cells are configured to be implanted under a capsule or within an organ,’ and ‘wherein the implantable microsystem is configured to be coupled to a peritoneum of the living body,’ have been carefully considered but do not impart any further structural limitations over the device of claim 10 and rather reflect statements of intended use.
The system of the prior art of Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris is capable of the islet cells being implanted under a capsule or within an organ as Miesenbock teaches the system wherein a light source is optically coupled to pancreatic islet cells, thereby making the system capable of being implanted in a location to have optical access to said cells which may be under a capsule or within an organ (Miensbock [0125]).
The system of the prior art of Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris is capable of having the microsystem coupled to a peritoneum of the living body as Miensebock teaches wherein the microsystem is implantable in a body at a location allowing the light source optical access to target islet cells, this location may be a peritoneum of the living body (Miensbock [0125]).
Regarding claim 13, Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris teach the system of claim 10. Miesenbock is silent regarding wherein the glucose sensor is coupled to a potentiostat for generating an analog signal corresponding to a glucose level.
Brauker teaches wherein the glucose sensor is coupled to a potentiostat for generating an analog signal corresponding to a glucose level (see Brauker Fig. 3, [0103]; potentiostate 24 associated with glucose sensor 12 that translates current into voltage).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microsystem of Miesenbock with the potentiostat coupled to the glucose sensor as taught by Brauker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a current value related to the glucose sensor to use in conjunction with the control electronics of the microsystem (Brauker [0103]).
Regarding claim 14, Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris teach the system of claim 10. Miesenbock is silent regarding the system further comprising an analog to digital converter communicating a digitized glucose level signal to the controller based on the analog signal.
Brauker teaches an analog to digital converter communicating a digitized glucose level signal to the controller based on the analog signal (see Brauker Fig. 3, [0103]; A/D converter 26 digitizes the analog signals for processing by the controller).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microsystem of Miesenbock with the analog converter as taught by Brauker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to convert the raw data obtained by the potentiostat into a signal that can be stored in the microprocessor of the control electronics and used to determine future actions (Brauker [0162]).
Regarding claim 15, Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris teach the system of claim 10. Miesenbock is silent regarding wherein a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes generates a first wavelength different than a second wavelength of a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes.
Harris teaches wherein a first light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes generates a first wavelength different than a second wavelength of a second light emitting diode of the plurality of light emitting diodes (see Harris [0043-0045]; each of the plurality of light sources can be controlled to serially apply each light signal at a specific wavelength).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Miesenbock and Brauker with the light emitting diodes having multiple different wavelengths as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to utilize the different cell responses when exposed to light of varying wavelengths (Harris [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris teach the system of claim 15. Harris teaches wherein the first light emitting diode emits blue light (see Harris [0024-0025]; blue light source 104) and the second light emitting diode generates red light (see Harris [0024-0025]; additional light source 104 for emitting red light). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Miesenbock and Brauker with the light emitting diodes having multiple different wavelengths as taught by Harris in order to utilize the different cell responses when exposed to light of varying wavelengths (Harris [0021]).
The limitations in claim 16 ‘for activating ChR2’ and ‘for activating ReaChR’ are statements of intended use and do not impart any further structural limitations over the system of claim 15. The system of the prior art has a light source for generating blue light and a light source for generating red light and is thereby capable of performing the claimed function of activating ChR2 with blue light and activating ReaChR with red light.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miesenbock et al (US 20030040080 A1) in view of Brauker et al (US 20050192557 A1), Harris et al (US 20200060585 A1), and Kim et al (US 20200376290 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris teach the system of claim 10. They are silent regarding wherein the first portion and the second portion are separated by a flexible cable.
Kim teaches an implantable device for light therapy comprising a first and second portion wherein the first portion and the second portion are separated by a flexible cable (see Kim [0029]; the light emitting portion 110 is connected to the control housing 120 by an electric wire 140).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris with the connection of the first and second microsystem portions via cable as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implant the light emitting portion in the most advantageous location for the photostimulation to be applied to target site while the control housing may be positioned away (Kim Fig. 3, [0056]).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miesenbock et al (US 20030040080 A1) in view of Brauker et al (US 20050192557 A1), Harris et al (US 20200060585 A1), and Blum et al (US 20160294225 A1).
Regarding claims 18-20, Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris teach the system of claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, they are silent regarding the system comprising a receiving coil disposed within the implantable microsystem for energizing the implantable microsystem from energy received from an energizing module.
Blum teaches a system for wireless power wherein the system comprising a receiving coil disposed within the implantable microsystem (see Blum [0114]; device may be an implanted device) for energizing the implantable microsystem from energy received from an energizing module (see Blum [0025]; receiver coil for the receipt of wireless power).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris with a receiving coil as taught by Blum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to wirelessly receive power from the power source (Blum [0025]) which would be especially advantageous in the case of an implanted microsystem that cannot receive power via a wired connection.
Regarding claim 19, Blum teaches the system further comprising a transmitting coil coupled to the controller for transmitting data to an energizing module (see Blum [0105]; the transmitter 110 is operatively connected to the battery 120 to selectively receive power).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris with a transmitting coil as taught by Blum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to wirelessly deliver power from the power source (Blum [0025]) which would be especially advantageous in the case of an implanted microsystem that cannot receive power via a wired connection.
Regarding claim 20, Blum teaches wherein the transmitting coil is coupled to a wireless transceiver (see Blum [0112-0114]; the transceiver circuit may pick up Bluetooth signals and/or be coupled to a Bluetooth connected device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Miesenbock, Brauker, and Harris with a transmitting coil coupled to a Bluetooth transceiver as taught by Blum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be compatible with a common wireless signal which may be used for the transmission of power or data.
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 ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792