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 RCE filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17, 19 and 21-31 remain pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
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, 27-30 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 and 17, Ishida discloses an implantable medical device (fig. 1) comprising:
a battery 105 (secondary battery, [0012]) providing a supply of electrical power for operation of the device, and
a thermoelectric generator (TEG) system (thermoelectric element 101 [0015]) for thermoelectric charging or re-charging of the battery (fig. 2) via externally applied electromagnetic wave [0014], the TEG 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/or 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).
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 claim 15, Ishida discloses an implantable medical device (fig. 1) comprising: a battery 105 providing a supply of electric power for operation of the implantable medical device, and a thermoelectric generator (TEG) system 101 for thermoelectric charging or re-charging of the battery (fig. 2) via an externally applied electromagnetic wave [0014], the TEG 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/or 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], the thermoelectric module having a cooling system for maintaining a temperature differential with respect to a side of the module heated by the field-sensitive component (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 for maintaining 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);
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).
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, 27-30 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, 27-30 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, 27-30 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, 27-30 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, 27-30 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-30 and 31 as being unpatentable over the disclosure of Ishida in view of Karicherla, the Applicant’ arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Firstly, the Applicant argued that Ishida teaches away from the present invention because Ishida discloses that heat is undesirable by-product of inductive charging to be avoided and dissipated while the present invention is directed to a system that thermoelectrically charges or re-charges a battery via an externally applied ultrasound field to produce electrical power in the implantable medical device. The argument is not persuasive because Ishida discloses using a thermoelectric generator to generate electrical power to charge and re-charge a battery to power an implantable medical device using heat generated by an externally applied energy field, such as electromagnetic wave that is one of the externally applied energy fields of current application. Specifically, paragraph [0013] of current specification discloses magnetic energy as one of the externally applied energy field that heats up the field-sensitive component, which is the same as the disclosure of Ishida. It is unclear as to how the disclosure of Ishida of utilizing thermoelectric generator to generate power to charge and recharge a battery of an implantable medical device via heat generated from an externally applied energy field, including the same energy field of current application, would be considered as “directly” teaching away from the claimed invention.
Secondly, with regard to the teaching of Karicherla, the Applicant argued that Karicherla merely discloses capacity of ultrasound energy to be transduced into heat; however, the selective line of argument by the Applicant neglects to include the fact that the heat generated by the externally applied ultrasound energy of Karicherla is used to power an implantable medical device, which is in the same field of endeavor as that of current application and Ishida. The Applicant further argued that Karicherla provides no hint or suggestion to use ultrasound to heat a thermoelectric generator, the statement is correct; however, Karicherla is not relied on for the disclosure of heating the thermoelectric generator via externally applied ultrasound. Karicherla is relied on for an alternative energy field for heating a field sensitive component of an implantable medical device similarly to the teaching of Ishida. The heat generated by the field sensitive component of the implantable medical device is subsequently used by the thermoelectric generator to generate power to charge the battery of the implantable medical device.
Thirdly, with regard to the motivation for combining the teaching of Ishida and Karicherla stated in the Office Action, the Applicant argued that the discussed motivation “is an example of different and distinct function from the prior art being aggregated without any architecture or purpose because, in Ishida, heat is an undesirable by-product of the inductive charging to be avoided and dissipated. Thus, there is no explanation or reason why such a person of ordinary skill would even contemplate, let alone be motivated to consider, an attempt to include the teaching of Karicherla”. The argument is not persuasive because the Applicant failed to mention that Ishida utilizes the heat generated from inductive charging to generate additional power to charge and recharge the battery. It is true that Ishida discloses the generated heat is not ideal when it is above a certain threshold (emphasis added); however, Ishida discloses ways in which the generated heat, when it is within a desirable range, can be utilized to generate additional power via the thermoelectric generator. Ishida further discloses mechanism for monitoring the temperature of the implantable medical device in paragraphs [0016-0017] to maintain the temperature of the implantable medical device within a desired range; therefore, it is not entirely correct that the generated heat from inductive charging is “undesirable” as alleged by the Applicant since the heat generated within a desirable range is useful for the purpose of Ishida’s implantable medical device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the teaching of Karicherla with the teaching of Ishida as discussed above in the rejection of the claims because in the event that inductive charging is not available, the application of ultrasound that induces heat generation from the field-sensitive component would allow the implantable medical device of Ishida to function by the power generated by the thermoelectric generator. Since Ishida already discloses a mechanism for monitoring the temperature of the implantable medical device within a desirable range, the application of ultrasound energy can be selective in order to maintain the temperature of the implantable medical device within the desirable range while maintaining the power generation and operation of the device via the power generated by the thermoelectric generator. Taken all together, it is the Examiner’s position that Karicherla and Ishida disclose enough detail with regard to function, architecture and purpose to conclude that the teaching of Karicherla would be beneficial for the implantable medical device of Ishida.
Fourthly, the Applicant argued that even if the distinctly different teachings of Ishida and Karicherla were combined, the result would not be an implantable medical device in which externally applied ultrasound energy is used as primary energy input to generate electrical power for charging a battery via thermoelectric generator (emphasis added). The argument is not persuasive because neither the claim or the specification indicates that the externally applied ultrasound energy is the primary energy input to generate electrical power for charging a battery via thermoelectric generator. This is because heat is the energy that allows the thermoelectric generator to generate power and the externally applied energy includes magnetic energy, microwave energy, ultrasound energy and/or x-ray energy as disclosed in paragraph [0013] of the specification. In other words, the importance of the externally applied ultrasound energy is overstated by the Applicant in current argument.
Fifthly, the Applicant argued that the Examiner’s suggestion of a “predictable result” is misplaced because:
“Teaching away by Ishida”, this is not persuasive because Ishida teaches using heat generated by an externally applied energy field to generate electrical power via a thermoelectric generator to charge and recharge a battery, which is the same as that of current application.
“Impermissible hindsight”, this is not persuasive because in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In instant situation, the combination of Ishida and Karicherla is supported by motivations taken from the respective teaching and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure.
“Chang in operating principle”, this is not persuasive because the Applicant has not provided any evidence that the above modification would change the operating principle of Ishida. Ishida’s device would still generate electrical power to charge and recharge a battery via externally applied energy field that generates heat in a field-sensitive component.
“the references address different technical problems”, this is not persuasive because both Ishida and Karicherla references address the same problem of powering implantable medical devices via externally applied energy field that generates heat in a field-sensitive component.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, 27-30 and 31 are obvious over the disclosure of Ishida and Karicherla.
The arguments regarding the rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 19, 21-25 and 30 are not persuasive because the arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1, 15, 17, 29 and 31 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 03/17/2026