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 .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 08/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17, 19 and 21-33 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 32, Ishida discloses an implantable medical device (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a field-sensitive component 104 configured to transduce an applied field comprising magnetic energy into heat [0016]; and
a thermoelectric module 101 thermally coupled to the field-sensitive component [0012] and configured to generate an electrical potential from the heat transduced by the field-sensitive component ([0010 and 0015], generation of electromotive force that corresponds to the claimed electrical potential), the thermoelectric module comprising an electrical output at which electrical power generated by the thermoelectric module is available (Ishida discloses in paragraph [0015] that the power generated by the thermoelectric module 101 is output to the boost circuit 302, then input to the charge control circuit 301 for charging the secondary battery 105; therefore, Ishida implicitly discloses the existence of an electrical output associated with the thermoelectric module in order to transmit the generated power to the boost circuit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235).
Addressing claims 1, 15 and 17, Ishida discloses an implantable medical device (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a field-sensitive component 104 configured to transduce an applied field comprising magnetic energy into heat [0016]; and
a thermoelectric module 101 thermally coupled to the field-sensitive component [0012] and configured to generate an electrical potential from the heat transduced by the field-sensitive component ([0010 and 0015], generation of electromotive force that corresponds to the claimed electrical potential), the thermoelectric module comprising an electrical output at which electrical power generated by the thermoelectric module is available (Ishida discloses in paragraph [0015] that the power generated by the thermoelectric module 101 is output to the boost circuit 302, then input to the charge control circuit 301 for charging the secondary battery 105; therefore, Ishida implicitly discloses the existence of an electrical output associated with the thermoelectric module in order to transmit the generated power to the boost circuit).
Ishida is silent regarding the field-sensitive component configured and/or adapted for transducing an externally applied field of ultrasound energy into heat.
Karicherla discloses an implantable medical device (figs. 1-150 comprising a field-sensitive component (subcutaneous power reception coil 18 in fig. 1 or ultrasound-responsive heating element 722 in fig. 11) for transducing a field of magnetic energy (via the subcutaneous power reception coil 18) into heat, similarly to the design of Ishida or ultrasound energy (via the ultrasound-responsive heating element 722 in fig. 11) into heat.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the implantable medical device of Ishida with the field-sensitive configured and/or adapted for transducing a field of ultrasound energy to heat as of Karicherla instead of or in conjunction with the field-sensitive component configured and/or adapted for transducing a field of magnetic energy into heat disclosed by Ishida in order to obtain the predictable result of generating heat for an implantable medical device (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143) as well as providing an additional way to generate heat for the implantable medical device via readily available ultrasound generating device in the event that magnetic energy generating device is not available (figs. 1-12 of Karicherla).
Addressing claim 8, Karicherla discloses in col. 23 ln 25 to col. 24 ln 54 polymeric materials for transducing the field of ultrasound energy into heat that correspond to the claimed solid block, sheet, strip or element of material.
Addressing claims 10 and 13-14, Ishida discloses the heating insulating member 106 disposed at the boundary between the heat conductor and the internal components of the device [0012] as the claimed cooling system as required by claim 10 or heat shielding as required by claims 13-14 for maintaining and/or enhancing a temperature differential to a side of the thermoelectric module heated by the field-sensitive component because the heat insulating member 106 ensures that the heat generated by the field sensitive material in layer 104 is transferred to the heat conductor 103 instead of being dissipated to other areas within the device.
Addressing claims 27-28, paragraph [0020] of Ishida discloses the implantable medical device is a pacemaker.
Addressing claims 29 and 31, Ishida discloses a thermoelectric generator system 101 (fig. 2) for charging or re-charging a power supply (battery 105) in an implantable medical device (fig. 1) via an externally applied electromagnetic wave [0015], the thermoelectric generator system comprising:
a field-sensitive component (metal case 104 + heat transfer body 103) ) configured and/or adapted to transducing the externally applied field of electromagnetic waves [0014] into heat [0015]; and
a thermoelectric module 101 (thermoelectric element [0015]) arranged and connected to interface with the field sensitive component (the heat transfer body 103 interfaces with thermoelectric element 101 [0012]) for generating an electric potential from the heat transduced by the field sensitive component [0015];
wherein the thermoelectric module 101 is arranged in electrical connection with the battery for applying the electric potential to the battery (fig. 2, [0015]).
Ishida is silent regarding the externally applied ultrasound energy field and the field-sensitive component configured and/or adapted for transducing the externally applied field of ultrasound energy into heat.
Karicherla discloses an implantable medical device (figs. 1-150 comprising a field-sensitive component (subcutaneous power reception coil 18 in fig. 1 or ultrasound-responsive heating element 722 in fig. 11) for transducing a field of magnetic energy (via the subcutaneous power reception coil 18) into heat, similarly to the design of Ishida or ultrasound energy (via the ultrasound-responsive heating element 722 in fig. 11) into heat.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the implantable medical device of Ishida with the field-sensitive configured and/or adapted for transducing a field of ultrasound energy to heat as of Karicherla instead of or in conjunction with the field-sensitive component configured and/or adapted for transducing a field of magnetic energy into heat disclosed by Ishida in order to obtain the predictable result of generating heat for an implantable medical device (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143) as well as providing an additional way to generate heat for the implantable medical device via readily available ultrasound generating device in the event that magnetic energy generating device is not available (figs. 1-12 of Karicherla).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 above, and further in view of Stark et al. (US 2013/0087180).
Addressing claim 3, Ishida discloses the heat conductor 103 is made of material having higher thermal conductivity than the metal case 104 [0012].
Ishida is silent regarding the limitations of current claims.
Stark discloses the heat collector 132 is made of injection-molded polymer filled with particles having high thermal conductivity such as graphite particles and is biocompatible [0070].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the heat conductor 103 of the heat-sensitive component of Ishida with the heat collector sheet made of injection-molded polymer filled with graphite particles as disclosed by Stark in order to improve the thermal conductivity of the heat conductor (Stark, [0070]). The graphite particles of Stark correspond to the claimed particles comprise or contain graphite for absorbing ACMF and/or MWF energy to be transduced into heat locally.
Addressing claim 7, the resin material of the heat collector disclosed by Stark corresponds to the claimed insert shell of resin enclose or encapsulate the graphite particles.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) and Stark et al. (US 2013/0087180) as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Horio (US 2009/0084423).
Addressing claim 5, Ishida and Stark are silent regarding the diameter of the particles.
Horio discloses heat conducting substrates for thermoelectric module made of synthetic resin material filled with graphite particles with diameter of 1 micron (1000 nm) or less [0077], which encompasses the claimed nanometer range.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the heat conducting layer of the field-sensitive component of Ishida in view of Stark with the known graphite particles having diameter of 1 micron or less as disclosed by Horio in order to obtain the predictable result of ensure excellent thermal conductivity for the heat conducting layer (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) and Stark et al. (US 2013/0087180) as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Baurecht et al. (AT399978 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 6, Ishida and Stark are silent regarding the claimed materials.
Baurecht discloses increasing the thermal conductivity of a synthetic resin body by adding graphite (similarly to the teaching of Stark) and titanium oxide (paragraph [0018] of the translation document).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the heat conductor of the field-sensitive component of Ishida in view of Stark with the titanium oxide particles disclosed by Baurecht in order to obtain the predictable result of improving thermal conductivity of the thermal conducting resin body (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 213).
Claim(s) 9, 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 above, and further in view of Leysieffer et al. (US 6,131,581).
Addressing claims 9, 24 and 30, Ishida discloses in paragraph [0013] the thermoelectric module includes a pair of N-type and P-type semiconductor elements that are attached to hot side and cool side.
Ishida is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Leysieffer discloses an implantable medical device comprising thermoelectric module (fig. 5) for generating power to charge secondary battery (col. 6 ln 1-30) similarly to that of Ishida; wherein, the thermoelectric module includes an n-type semiconductor element and a p-type semiconductor element (col. 4 ln 26-28) connected at their respective end region (fig. 5), wherein at one end region the two elements are interconnected by and/or interface with the hot pole 15 and at an opposite end region the two elements are interconnected by and/or interface with a cold pole 16, which is the structural equivalence to the claimed heat sink.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the thermoelectric module of Ishida with the known thermoelectric module disclosed by Leysieffer in order to obtain the predictable result of generating electrical power to charge the battery from temperature differential (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143). In the modified device of Ishida in view of Leysieffer, the claimed interconnected end region of the two elements that interfaces with the field-sensitive component is met because ends of the thermoelectric legs 21 and 22 are interconnected at the hot pole that is part of the field-sensitive component similarly to the way in which the heat conductor 103 of Ishida is part of the field-sensitive component and the opposite end region of the two elements are interconnected by and/or interface with the cold pole or heat sink as disclosed by Leysieffer.
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0155027).
Addressing claims 11 and 25, Ishida is silent regarding the limitations of current claims.
Kwak discloses a thermoelectric generating system that generates electrical power from temperature difference [0002] similarly to that of Ishida. The thermoelectric generating system includes a cooling system (cooling jacket 21, [0026] and figs. 1-4) for maintaining and/or enhancing a temperature differential with respect to a side of the thermoelectric module 10 heated by the heat source [0026]. The cooling jacket includes cooling passages 23 through which a cooling medium passes as the structural equivalence to the claimed circuit for a coolant [0036]. Fig. 4 shows the cooling circuit in contact with the thermoelectric module 10 in a configuration that qualifies as the claimed single-phase cooling. Kwak further discloses in paragraph [0025] that the thermoelectric module 10 includes n-type and p-type semiconductor material similarly to that of Ishida, which implies the active cooling system 21 forms the heat sink at the opposite end region of the two elements of n-type and p-type semiconductor element.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Ishida with the cooling jacket disclosed by Kwak in order to ensure temperature differential between the hot side and cold side of the thermoelectric module for power generation (Kwak, [0005]).
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) and Leysieffer et al. (US 6,131,581) as applied to claims 9 and 24 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2017/0155027).
Addressing claims 12 and 26, Ishida, Karicherla and Leysieffer are silent regarding the limitations of current claims.
Kwak discloses a thermoelectric generating system that generates electrical power from temperature difference [0002] similarly to that of Ishida. The thermoelectric generating system includes a cooling system (cooling jacket 21, [0026] and figs. 1-4) for maintaining and/or enhancing a temperature differential with respect to a side of the thermoelectric module 10 heated by the heat source [0026]. The cooling jacket includes cooling passages 23 through which a cooling medium passes as the structural equivalence to the claimed circuit for a coolant [0036]. Kwak further discloses in paragraph [0025] that the thermoelectric module 10 includes n-type and p-type semiconductor material similarly to that of Ishida, which implies the active cooling system 21 forms the heat sink at the opposite end region of the two elements of n-type and p-type semiconductor element.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Ishida with the cooling jacket disclosed by Kwak in order to ensure temperature differential between the hot side and cold side of the thermoelectric module for power generation (Kwak, [0005]).
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 and further in view of Peyman (US 2011/0287035).
Addressing claims 19 and 21, Ishida and Karicherla are silent regarding the limitations of current claims.
Peyman discloses a medical device comprising nanoparticles that generate heat when subjected to ultrasound [0070].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify implantable medical device of Ishida in view of Karicherla with the known nanoparticles disclosed by Peyman in order obtain the predictable result of generating heat through ultrasound (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) and Peyman (US 2011/0287035) as applied to claims 19 and 21 above, and further in view of Kent et al. (GB2567206)
Addressing claim 22, Ishida and Karicherla are silent regarding the claimed material.
Kent discloses titanium oxide nanoparticles are added to PCM in order to increase thermal conductivity (page 6 ln 29-35).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the field-sensitive component of Ishida in view of Karicherla with the titanium oxide nanoparticles disclosed by Kent in order to increase the thermal conductivity generated by ultrasound energy (Kent, page 6 ln 29-35).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP2003265626 with provided machine English translation) in view of Karicherla et al. (US 7,632,235) as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (CN206924084 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 23, Karicherla discloses the field-sensitive component 722 as the structural equivalence to the claimed solid block, sheet, strip or element of material adapted for transducing the field of ultrasound energy into heat.
Ishida and Karicherla are silent regarding the material is selected from the group consisting of haematite, magnetite, silicon carbide and graphite.
Luo discloses a device for generating heat from ultrasound comprising a layer of graphite 12 (paragraph [0029] of the translation document).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the field sensitive component of Ishida in view of Karicherla with the graphite material disclosed by Luo in order to improve heat generation from ultrasound (paragraphs [0036-0039] of the translation document).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 33, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the limitation of claim 33.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 as being unpatentable over the disclosure of Ishida in view of Karicherla, the Applicants argued that Ishida does not disclose the field-sensitive component configured to transduce ultrasound energy into heat or a thermoelectric module thermally coupled to such a component and configured to generate an electric potential from that transduced heat. The argument is acknowledged; however, is not persuasive because the Office Action does not assert that Ishida discloses the field-sensitive component configured to transduce ultrasound energy into heat. Ishida however discloses transducing electromagnetic energy into heat, which is then used to generate electrical power via the thermoelectric module. In other words, the only difference between the teaching of Ishida and that of claims 1, 15, 17, 29 and 31 is the field-sensitive component configured to transduce ultrasound energy into heat.
The Applicants further argued that Karicherla fails to cure the deficiencies because Karicherla does not disclose using the heat as thermal input into a thermoelectric module to generate electrical power at an electrical output. The argument is acknowledged but is not persuasive because the Office Action does not assert that Karicherla discloses using the heat as thermal input into a thermoelectric module to generate electrical power at an electrical output. Karicherla discloses two ways to generate heat in an implantable medical device, either with externally applied magnetic energy similarly to that of Ishida or externally applied ultrasound. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Karicherla remedies the deficiencies of Ishida by teaching the externally applied ultrasound energy as an alternative means to generate heat in an implantable medical device to the externally applied magnetic energy. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the implantable medical device of Ishida with the field-sensitive configured and/or adapted for transducing a field of ultrasound energy to heat as of Karicherla instead of or in conjunction with the field-sensitive component configured and/or adapted for transducing a field of magnetic energy into heat disclosed by Ishida in order to obtain the predictable result of generating heat for an implantable medical device (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143) as well as providing an additional way to generate heat for the implantable medical device via readily available ultrasound generating device in the event that magnetic energy generating device is not available (figs. 1-12 of Karicherla).
The Applicants argued that “the claims as presently amended are therefore respectfully considered to be not anticipated”, the argument is not persuasive because it does not address the content of the rejection since the rejection is based on 35 USC 103, which is not an anticipatory rejection; “and not obvious with respect to prior art citations of Ishida and Karicherla, either individually or in combination”, the argument is not persuasive because the Office Action does not state that Ishida and Karicherla individually disclose the limitations of claims 1, 15, 17, 29 and 31. However, as discussed above, Ishida and Karicherla in combination renders the limitations of claims 1, 15, 17, 29 and 31 obvious.
The Applicants further argued “The Examiner’s proposed combination would require the person of ordinary skill to depart from Ishida’s direct inductive electrical-energy transfer mechanism … use the transduced heat to generate an electric potential at the module’s electrical output”. Any modification of Ishida’s device would of course depart from Ishida’s teaching; however, based on the fact that both Ishida and Karicherla disclose implantable medical devices having structures that transduce externally applied energy into heat with Karicherla disclosing externally applying magnetic energy to generate heat similarly to that of Ishida, modifying Ishida’s device with the field-sensitive component that transduces externally applied ultrasound energy, as disclosed by Karicherla, in combination with or substitution of the field-sensitive component that transduces externally applied magnetic energy to generate heat would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Applicants further argued “For claim 15, the combination would additionally require the claimed cooling system”, this is incorrect because claim 15 does not require any cooling system. Furthermore, it appears that claims 1, 15 and 17 recite the same limitation.
The Applicants further argued “the cited references do not provide an articulated reason for rational underpinning for making that series of modifications”. The argument is not persuasive based on the reasons stated above.
With regard to the limitation “the thermoelectric module comprising an electrical output at which electrical power generated by the thermoelectric module is available”, the limitation is taught by Ishida because Ishida discloses in paragraph [0015] that the power generated by the thermoelectric module 101 is output to the boost circuit 302, then input to the charge control circuit 301 for charging the secondary battery 105; therefore, Ishida implicitly discloses the existence of an electrical output associated with the thermoelectric module in order to transmit the generated power to the boost circuit.
The Applicants further argued that Ishida’s inductive receiving coil is not equivalent to or interchangeable with the claimed heat transducing structure, the statement is correct; however, it is not persuasive because it does not address the content of the rejection. This is because the Office Action does not equate the receiving coil as the structural equivalence to the claimed heat transducing structure.
The Applicants further argued that Ishida’s incidental heating is not equivalent to Applicant’s deliberate thermal transduction, the argument is not persuasive because whether the generation of heat is incidental or deliberate, the fact is that heat is generated by an externally applied energy as disclosed by Ishida and Karicherla is enough to meet the claimed limitation.
The Applicants further argued “The Examiner then relies on Karicherla to cure the stated deficiencies of Ishida … Karicherla is directed to producing heat, not using externally induced heat to generate electrical energy by Seebeck conversion in an implantable thermoelectric generator. Karicherla does not disclose a thermoelectric module, does not disclose controlled temperature-differential generation across such a module, and does not disclose integrating that thermoelectric generation architecture with implant-safe thermal management”. The argument is not persuasive because it is a piecemeal argument that focuses solely on Karicherla teaching without taking into account that this is an obviousness rejection. If Karicherla were to disclose all of the limitation that the Applicants alleged Karicherla does not, the teaching of Karicherla would have been an anticipatory rejection.
The Applicants argued that the Examiner’s rationale appears to rest at a high level of abstraction: both references concern implants that interact with externally applied energy. The Applicants’ statement is an oversimplification of the content of the Office Action and the teaching of Ishida and Karicherla. Not only that Ishida and Karicherla teaches implantable medical devices with means for generating heat from externally applied energy, both Ishida and Karicherla teach the same externally applied magnetic energy as a mean to generate heat for an implantable medical device. The commonality between the teaching of Ishida and Karicherla is specific and not superficial as alleged by the Applicants.
The Applicants further argued that “the proposed combination also lacks a sufficient articulated reason for combination with rational underpinning by the POSITA to arrive at the Applicant’s presently claimed invention”. The argument is not persuasive because the POSITA would recognize that ultrasound, as an alternative or in conjunction with magnetic energy, is an additional means for generating heat, which is used for generating electrical power for the purpose of Ishida’s device. The proposed modification provides Ishida with an additional way to generate heat for the implantable medical device via readily available ultrasound generating device in the event that magnetic energy generating device is not available (figs. 1-12 of Karicherla); thus, powering the implantable medical device of Ishida when magnetic energy is not available.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 are unpatentable over the disclosure of Ishida and Karicherla.
With regard to the rejection of claims 11-12 and 25-26 over Ishida, Karicherla and Kwak, the Applicants argued that Kwak does not remedy the defects of Ishida and Karicherla because Kwak concerns thermal management in the context of automotive exhaust thermoelectric systems and does not concern an implantable biomedical thermoelectric generator subject to physiological thermal limits, tissue safety requirements, miniaturization constrains, and externally driven thermal transduction. The argument is not persuasive because for a thermoelectric generator to function efficiently, the temperature difference between the hot end and the cold end has to be maintained; therefore, the teaching of Kwak of using the cooling system to maintain the temperature differential between the hot end and the cold end is applicable to the teaching of Ishida and Karicherla. Furthermore, Ishida already discloses miniature implantable medical device having the thermoelectric module; therefore, the teaching of Ishida provides road map for the POSITA to adapt the cooling system of Kwak to fit the dimension of the thermoelectric module in the implantable medical device of Ishida.
The Applicants further argued that “the Examiner also improperly treats passive insulation or general heat removal as equivalent to the claimed cooling system”, it is unclear as to who the removal of heat is not the same as cooling. Furthermore, Kwak discloses an active cooling system and not a passive insulation as alleged by the Applicants. The Applicants further argued “Applicant’s cooling arrangement actively participates in thermodynamic management by maintaining a useful temperature differential while dissipating heat in a manner compatible with implantation. The pending cooling claims do not merely recite thermal insulation”. The argument is not persuasive the Office Action does not rely on thermal insulation for the rejection of claims 11-12 and 25-26 based on the teaching of Kwak.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 11-12 and 25-26 are unpatentable over the disclosure of Ishida, Karicherla and Kwak.
The arguments regarding the teaching of Stark, Horio, Baurecht, Peyman, Luo and Kent are not persuasive because the arguments regarding claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-29 and 31 as being unpatentable over the disclosure of Ishida and Karicherla are not persuasive.
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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/03/2026
Prosecution Insights