DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/22/2025 with respect to the rejection of Independent Claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Vodermayer does not disclose such a “bar magnet,” such a “fourth sensor,” or such a configuration for detecting alignment as recited by amended Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20150200562 A1 and US 2009/0212637 A1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Dependent Claims 2-26 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, respectively, are based on Applicant’s arguments regarding Independent Claim 1. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive for the same reasons as explained above with respect to Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20150200562 A1 and US 2009/0212637 A1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 24 and 25 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments have resolved the cited indefiniteness issues. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to Claim 23 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments to Claim 23 have resolved the cited informalities. Therefore, the object has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 25, Ln. 1-2, “a cable holder configured to guide a cable,” which is being interpreted to mean a “mechanical fastener, hook-and-loop fastener, or the like” (Present Specification at Para. [0157], “The cable holder 5000 may be mechanical fastener, hook-and-loop fastener, or the like.”) and functional equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Vodermayer teaches:
A device for transcutaneously transferring energy into a human body, the device comprising: (Abstract, “A transfer assembly comprising an intracorporeal transfer coil of an implant, and an extracorporeal transfer coil of an extracorporeal supply unit.”);
a first induction coil configured to be disposed in a patient's body; (Fig. 1, “transfer coil 18” of “implant 12”);
a second induction coil configured to be disposed outside of the patient's body, (Fig. 1, “extracorporeal transfer coil 20” of “extracorporeal supply means 14”);
the second induction coil configured to provide a magnetic field for transferring energy to the first induction coil through the patient's body; (Col. 4, Ln. 25-30, “The electrical energy required for operating the blood pump 16 must therefore be transferred in a cordless manner. The transfer is performed via an implant 12 transfer coil 18 which is implanted immediately beneath the skin, and an extracorporeal transfer coil 20 of the extracorporeal supply means 14;” Col. 4, Ln. 38-43, “If an optimum coupling exists between the two transfer coils 18,20, approximately the same induced voltage and/or the same induced current are measured in the receiving elements 22 to 24 in the course of an alternating field generated for a short time in the transfer coil 18 of the implant 12.”);
a plurality of sensors comprising three sensors arranged in a triangular configuration (Col. 2, Ln. 33-38, “ For determining the direction of offset beyond the offset, at least three receiving elements are provided, which are arranged relative to each other in the form of an equilateral triangle, for example.”);
the plurality of sensors configured to detect a position of the second induction coil relative to the first induction coil and generate a position signal based on the relative position of the second induction coil, (Fig. 1, “evaluation module 30” and “receiving elements 22, 23, 24;” Col. 4, Ln. “Depending on the measured offset and the measured direction of offset between the transmitting element and the receiving elements 22,23,24, the evaluation module 30 feeds a corresponding locating signal to an optical display unit 32. The optical locating display unit 32 is associated with the supply means 14 and can be easily read by the patient. This allows the patient to optimally align the extracorporeal transfer coil 20 of the supply means 14 with the intracorporeal transfer coil 18 of the implant 12.”).
Vodermayer’s “receiving elements 22, 23, 24” in conjunction Vodermayer’s “evaluation module 30” constitute such a sensor as claimed. See Vodermayer at Col. 2, Ln. 22-30 in further support of this position.
Vodermayer does not disclose:
and a bar magnet;
and a fourth sensor positioned within the triangular configuration and configured to align with the bar magnet,
wherein the fourth sensor measures a threshold voltage;
and wherein the plurality of sensors detect alignment between the second induction coil and the first induction coil when a first sensor of the three sensors measures a first voltage greater than the threshold voltage and a second sensor of the three sensors measures a second voltage less than the threshold voltage.
Baarman describes “A magnetic positioning system for use in inductive couplings” (Abstract). Baarman is analogous art.
Baarman teaches:
and a bar magnet; (Fig. 12, “bar magnet 524;” Para. [0060], “A bar magnet may be used in application where it is desirable for a remote device to be positioning essentially anywhere along the length of the bar magnet.”);
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Vodermayer with the teachings of Baarman (i.e., to use a bar magnet to for aligning with Vodermayer’s sensors) in order to “facilitate positioning essentially anywhere along the length of the bar magnet” (Baarman at Para. [0060]).
Kilinc describes “wireless power transmission for freely moving tags, more particularly for implanted devices” (Para. [0001]). Kilinc is analogous art.
Kilinc teaches:
and a fourth sensor positioned within the triangular configuration and configured to align with the bar magnet, (Figure 5; Para. [0034]; see Annotated Figure 5, below);
Kilnic’s “S1,” labeled “Center Sensor” in Annotated Figure 5, is such a “fourth sensor…” as claimed.
wherein the fourth sensor measures a threshold voltage; (Para. [0034], “For example, if the mouse moves from point A to point B as shown in FIG. 5, the output of the sensor 1 will decrease and that of sensor 3 and sensor 4 will increase.”);
and wherein the plurality of sensors detect alignment between the second induction coil and the first induction coil when a first sensor of the three sensors measures a first voltage greater than the threshold voltage and a second sensor of the three sensors measures a second voltage less than the threshold voltage. (Figure 5; Para. [0034], “There are 4 magnetic field sensors at the sides (the number of the sensors can be increased for better detection) of the powering coil and one in the middle of the powering coil. A small magnet is placed in the implanted device. The output voltage of the magnetic field sensors changes due to the magnetic field applied by this magnet. If the magnet is close to the sensor, the sensor output voltage increases or decreases according to the closest pole of the magnet. The aim of the system is to track the magnet movement and to maximize the output voltage of the center sensor. For example, if the mouse moves from point A to point B as shown in FIG. 5, the output of the sensor 1 will decrease and that of sensor 3 and sensor 4 will increase. A controller system will check these sensors' output and control the X- and Y-axis rails according to the output of the sensors such that the implanted device and also the animal can be tracked and an efficient continuous power will be transferred;” see Annotated Figure 5, below; see also Paras. [0028] through [0033] and Para. [0039] further detailing the pertinent concept)
PNG
media_image1.png
547
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kilinc’s Para. [0034] and Figure 5 detail an arrangement similar to that of Claim 1, but using a square rather than a triangle.
As shown in Annotated Figure 5, Kilinc’s Figure 5 depicts four “perimeter sensors” (Para. [0034], “There are 4 magnetic field sensors at the sides…”) which surround a “center sensor.” Kilinc positions a magnet on a moving object (a mouse), and uses relative sensor voltage as a means to determine position (Para. [0034], “A small magnet is placed in the implanted device. The output voltage of the magnetic field sensors changes due to the magnetic field applied by this magnet.”). Kilnic uses relative voltage of Kilnic’s sensors (with Kilnic’s “Center Sensor” in Annotated Figure 5) as a reference/base for comparison (Para. [0034], “…if the mouse moves from point A to point B as shown in FIG. 5, the output of the sensor 1 will decrease and that of sensor 3 and sensor 4 will increase.”). This comparison teaches the above limitation.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer and Baarman with the teachings of Kilinc (i.e., to include within the triangular sensor arrangement of Vodermayer as modified by Baarman to include an aligning bar magnet such a “center sensor” as taught by Kilinc as a fourth sensor, and to subsequently use this fourth sensor to detect alignment based on relative voltage in the manner of Kilinc) in order to facilitate position tracking of the induction coils relative to one another (Kilinc at Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Vodermayer additionally discloses:
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one Hall sensor configured to detect the relative position of the second induction coil (Col. 3, Ln. 3-4, “The receiving element may also be configured as a coil or as a Hall sensor.”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Vodermayer additionally discloses:
further comprising a display unit configured to display position information based on the position signal provided by the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, “optical display unit 32”).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20200028376 A1 to Ha et al. (“Ha”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claims 1 and 2 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises a gyro sensor configured to sense a spatial position of the second induction coil, and wherein the plurality of sensors are configured to provide a spatial signal based on the spatial position determined by the gyro sensor
Ha describes a “Device for performing wireless charging and method thereof” (Title). Ha is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both Ha and the Present Invention are concerned with wireless energy transfer (see Ha at Abstract; Present Specification at Para. [0004]). Ha is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Ha teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a gyro sensor configured to sense a spatial position of the second induction coil, and wherein the sensor is configured to provide a spatial signal based on the spatial position determined by the gyro sensor (Para. [0075], “As such, the first electronic device 410 may be able to determine the spatial relationship between the first electronic device 410 and the second electronic device 420. For example, using a gyro sensor, the first electronic device 410 may determine whether its front surface (i.e. the surface containing the display 415) faces the top side (e.g., a +z direction) or the bottom side opposite to the top side (e.g., a −z direction).”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Ha (i.e., to include among Vodermayer’s “receiving elements 22, 23, 24” such a gyro sensor as taught by Ha) in order to allow accurate determination of how device components are oriented relative to one another, thereby improving energy transfer by facilitating proper alignment (Ha at Paras. [0076], [0076]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited Non-Patent Literature Y. D. Chung and J. S. Kim, "Improved efficiency characteristics of wireless power charging system for superconducting MAGLEV train using inserted permanent magnets," 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility," 2018, pp. 564-567 (“Chung”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
wherein the first induction coil comprises a permanent magnet configured to provide a magnetic field
Chung describes “Improved efficiency characteristics of wireless power charging system for superconducting MAGLEV train using inserted permanent magnets” (Title). Chung is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both Ha and the Present Invention are concerned with wireless energy transfer (see Chung at Abstract; Present Specification at Para. [0004]). Chung is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Chung teaches:
wherein the first induction coil comprises a permanent magnet configured to provide a magnetic field (Chung at Pg. 565, Left Column, Second Paragraph, “In this paper, authors present the approach of design considerations of wireless power transfer technology applications to improved transfer efficiency using inserted permanent magnet…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc s with the teachings of Chung (i.e., to use a permanent magnet as taught by Chung as the first induction coil of Vodermayer) in order to improve transfer efficiency (Chung at Pg. 565, Left Column, Second Paragraph).
Claims 5, 7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as respectively applied to Claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20150290373 A1 to Rudser et al. (“Rudser”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Vodermayer additionally discloses:
further comprising a control unit, the control unit comprising: a non-transitory memory configured to store computer-executable instructions and a hardware processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: … and receive the position signal form the plurality of sensors (Col. 3, Ln. 43-46, “The signals received by the receiving elements are evaluated in a microcomputer and/or a microcontroller, and a corresponding locating signal is issued by the microcomputer and/or the microcontroller.”).
Vodermayer’s “microcomputer” is such a “control unit as claimed,” and is configured to store computer-executable instructions by virtue of its being a microcomputer.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders not disclose:
and a hardware processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: control a voltage supplied to the second induction coil;
That is, Vodermayer’s hardware processor is not configured control a voltage supplied to the second induction coil.
Rudser describes “…an improved transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) system that generates and wirelessly transmits a sufficient amount of energy to power one or more implanted devices, including a heart pump…” (Title). Rudser is analogous art.
Rudser teaches:
and a hardware processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: control a voltage supplied to the second induction coil; (Para. [0051], “The driver circuitry 128 may also be controlled by the external control circuitry 122. For example, the external control circuitry 122 may determine an appropriate setting (e.g., voltage, current, pulse width) at which the external coil 130 should be driven so as to inductively generate enough power at the implanted coil 140 that the implanted medical device 102 may be supplied with a sufficient amount of power.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Rudser (i.e., to modify Vodermayer’s microcomputer such that it additionally is able to control voltage in the manner taught by Rudser) in order to ensure that sufficient power is supplied to the device being powered (Rudser at Para. [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
wherein the display unit comprises at least one light unit configured to visually display the position information
Rudser describes “…an improved transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) system that generates and wirelessly transmits a sufficient amount of energy to power one or more implanted devices, including a heart pump…” (Title). Rudser is analogous art.
Rudser teaches:
wherein the display unit comprises at least one light unit configured to visually display the position information (Fig. 4, “visual indicator 480 including a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 481-486;” Para. [0076], “…the LEDs 481-486 are configured to indicate the position of the external primary coil 130 relative to an implanted secondary coil 140…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Rudser (i.e., to use as Vodermayer’s display such LEDs as taught by Rudser) in order to provide a visual indication of alignment (Vodermayer at Para. [0076]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser renders obvious the entirety of Claim 5 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser does not disclose:
wherein the control unit is detachably connected to the second induction coil
Rudser teaches:
wherein the control unit is detachably connected to the second induction coil (Para. [0025], “The implantable blood pump system may optionally further include an implantable controller housing separate from the implantable blood pump, and an internal controller circuit disposed within the implantable controller housing and electrically connected to the implantable coil via a first electrical cable and to the blood pump via a second electrical cable.”).
Rudser discloses use of both an “internal controller circuit” and an “external controller circuit.” Each of Rudser’s “controller circuits” are such “control units” as claimed. Rudser’s “internal controller circuit” is “detachably connected” to Rudser’s second (i.e., externally positioned) coil in the manner claimed when the term is afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. See Rudser at Para. [0043] describing the manner by which Rudser’s device operates.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser with the above teachings of Rudser (i.e., to additionally include such “internal” control circuitry as taught by Rudser in the device as previously modified by Rudser) in order to provide “improved efficiency, improved safety, and improved comfort and/or convenience for the patient” (Rudser at Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser renders obvious the entirety of Claim 5 as explained above.
Vodermayer additionally discloses:
wherein the control unit is integrated with the second induction coil (Col. 4, Ln. 46-47, “…evaluation module 30 … is electrically connected with the three receiving elements 22, 23, 24…”).
Vodermayer’s electrical connection is such integration as claimed.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20160022889 A1 to Bluvshtein et al. (“Bluvshtein”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
wherein the display unit comprises at least one speaker unit configured to acoustically output the position information
Bluvshtein describes “…measuring and calculating parameters to control and monitor a power transfer in an implanted medical device” (Abstract).
wherein the display unit comprises at least one speaker unit configured to acoustically output the position information (Para. [0168], “Control and power source module 12 includes speakers 90 driven by driver 150 for emitting audible sounds, such as alarms to patient 20 or a caregiver, such as a clinician.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Bluvshtein (i.e., to include in the display of Vodermayer such a speaker as taught by Bluvshtein) in order to allow “for emitting audible sounds, such as alarms to patient … or a caregiver, such as a clinician” (Bluvshtein at Para. [0168]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20180126053 A1 to Zilbershlag (“Zilbershlag”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
wherein the display unit comprises at least one vibration unit configured to output the position information haptically
Zilbershlag describes “wristwatches that provide monitoring functions for implanted VADs” (Para. [0006]). Zilbershlag is analogous art.
Zilbershlag teaches:
wherein the display unit comprises at least one vibration unit configured to output the position information haptically (Para. [0012], “The system also includes a wristwatch, such as a smart watch, that has a wireless receiver configured to wirelessly receive the data from the controller and a data output component, such as a visual display, an audio source, and/or a haptic feedback source, configured to present information to a user based on the received data.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Zilbershlag (i.e., to modify the display device of Vodermayer such that it further comprises such a vibration unit which provides haptic feedback as taught by Zilbershlag) in order to “provide an alert to a patient or medical professional so as to warn of any critical information related to the implant or internal battery” (Zilbershlag at Para. [0106]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of previously cited US 8612002 B2 to Faltys et al. (“Faltys”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
Vodermayer additionally discloses:
wherein the display unit comprises a display configured to output a … display of the position information, (Fig. 1, “optical display unit 32”).
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
wherein the display unit comprises a display configured to output a graphical display…
That is, Vodermayer is silent as to whether Vodermayer’s display is a graphical display.
the graphical display comprising one or more of: a battery indicator, an alarm indicator, a connection indicator, or a system information display
Faltys describes a “system for treating chronic inflammation … [which] include[s] an implantable microstimulator, a wearable charger, and optionally an external controller” (Abstract). Faltys’s “microstimulator is designed to be implanted within deep tissue, so that it can be recharged and controlled using an external (e.g., transcutaneous) inductive link through a charger encircling the implant outside the body” (Col. 24, Ln. 17-20). Faltys is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both Faltys and the Present Invention are concerned with wireless energy transfer (see Faltys at Abstract, Col. 24, Ln. 17-20; Present Specification at Para. [0004]). Faltys is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Faltys teaches:
wherein the display unit comprises a display configured to output a graphical display… (Col. 46, Ln. 4-6, “The Implant Battery Status is shown with both a numeric and a graphical display of battery charge level.”);
the graphical display comprising one or more of: a battery indicator, an alarm indicator, a connection indicator, or a system information display (Col. 46, Ln. 4-6, “The Implant Battery Status is shown with both a numeric and a graphical display of battery charge level.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Faltys (i.e., to modify the display of Vodermayer such that it includes a graphical display indicating battery level in the manner taught by Faltys) in order to provide users with an indication of battery charge (Faltys at Col. 46, Ln. 1-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20040124979 A1 to Medema et al. (“Medema”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc does not disclose:
further comprising an alarm button for triggering of an emergency call
Medema describes “[t]echniques for initiating direct communication between an emergency medical device” (Abstract). Medema is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both Medema and the Present Invention are concerned with improving human-machine interfaces in medical devices (see Medema at Abstract; Present Specification at Para. [0003]). Medema is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Medema teaches:
further comprising an alarm button for triggering of an emergency call (Para. [0053], “Specifically, in the example of FIG. 8, AED 12 includes a `911` button 94 that an operator may press to initiate direct contact with a safety agency 14.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman and Kilinc with the teachings of Medema (i.e., to include in the device of Vodermayer such a “911” or “alarm” button as taught by Medema) in order to allow a user to contact emergency personnel in the event of a health emergency (Medema at Para. [0053]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) in view of previously cited US 20150290373 A1 to Rudser et al. (“Rudser”) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20120150291 A1 to Aber et al. (“Aber”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser renders obvious the entirety of Claim 5 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser does not disclose:
wherein the control unit is disposed in a watertight and dustproof housing
Aber describes “A high efficiency cardiac support system is suitable for chronic use in treating heart failure, wherein the system includes an implantable rotary blood pump, an implantable power module, a wireless power transfer subsystem, a patient monitor, and a programmer” (Abstract). Aber is analogous art.
Aber teaches:
wherein the control unit is disposed in a watertight and dustproof housing (Para. [0112], “The hermetically-sealed biocompatible housing 345…”).
Aber’s hermetically-sealed housing is watertight and dustproof by virtue of it being hermetically sealed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Rudser with the teachings of Aber (i.e., to hermetically seal the housing of Vodermayer) in order to improve the functionality of the device with respect to power transfer and to increase the reliability of the device (Aber at Para. [0112]).
Claims 15-17, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”) and US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20180280708 A1 to Escalano et al. (“Escalano”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, and Kilinc the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, and Kilinc does not disclose:
further comprising a positioning apparatus configured to position the second induction coil on the patient’s body,
the positioning apparatus comprising: a receiving element configured to receive the second induction coil,
wherein the receiving element is detachable from a mounting surface;
a wired connection configured to connect the receiving element and the second induction coil with at least one extracorporeal component;
and a supporting element configured to receive and support the at least one extracorporeal component,
the supporting element comprising at least one connecting element configured to detachably connect the at least one extracorporeal component to the supporting ekement.
Escalano describes “Transcutaneous Energy Transfer Systems and Methods” (Title). Escalano is analogous art.
Escalano teaches:
further comprising a positioning apparatus configured to position the second induction coil on the patient’s body, (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, below; see also Paras. [0043] through [046] and Paras. [0274], [0275]);
PNG
media_image2.png
703
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the positioning apparatus comprising: a receiving element configured to receive the second induction coil, wherein the receiving element is detachable from a mounting surface; (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, below; see also Paras. [0043] through [046] and Paras. [0274], [0275]);
a wired connection configured to connect the receiving element and the second induction coil with at least one extracorporeal component; (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, below; see also Paras. [0043] through [046] and Paras. [0274], [0275]);
and a supporting element configured to receive and support the extracorporeal component, (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, below; see also Paras. [0043] through [046] and Paras. [0274], [0275]);
the supporting element comprising at least one connecting element configured to detachably connect the at least one extracorporeal component to the supporting device. (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, below; see also Paras. [0043] through [046] and Paras. [0274], [0275]);
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, and Kilinc with the teachings of Escalano (i.e., to modify the device of Vodermayer such that it is secured to its user via such a system as taught by Escalano) in order to allow “transmitter coils [to] be replaced when worn out or dirty, or with a different coil unit, without requiring replacement of the whole external power transmitter apparatus” (Escalano at Para. [0274]).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Escalano further teaches:
wherein the receiving element is detachably connected to the second induction coil (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, above; Para. [0046], “Where the or each garment is disposable, the transmitter coils may be arranged to be releaseably connected to a part of a remainder of the external apparatus e.g. using suitable connectors such as wires, to enable the coil unit i.e. the garment and its coils to be replaced by a new coil unit i.e. a new garment or garments having one or more coils.”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Escalano additionally discloses:
further comprising a positioning patch, the positioning patch configured to be positioned and attached to the human body by an adhesive, wherein the receiving element is a disposed on the positioning patch (Para. [0116], “Each receiver coil may be associated with means for mounting the coil to the body of a wearer i.e. in proximity to a respective transmitter coil of an external transmitter apparatus of the TET system in use. For example, each receiver coil may comprise means for adhesively mounting the coil to the body.”).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Escalano additionally teaches:
wherein the supporting element comprises a textile layer configured to carry the positioning apparatus on the patient’s body, wherein the textile layer comprises one or more conduits configured to connect one or more extracorporeal components of the device (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, above; Para. [0150], “As described in relation to the earlier aspects, the other components of the external transmitter apparatus may or may not be mounted to the garment, or a one of a set of garments, having the coil(s) thereon. For example, at least some of the other components of the apparatus may be mounted to a belt.”).
Escalano’s “belt” comprises such a “textile layer” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Escalano additionally teaches:
wherein the receiving element further comprises a first electrical contact, and wherein the at least one connecting element further comprises a second electrical contact, and wherein the first electrical contact and second electrical contact are configured to establish an electrical connection when joined together (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, above).
As is shown in Annotated Fig. 12, Escalano’s “at least one connecting element” is a wire (see Escalano at Para. [0220]) which supplies power to Escalano’s “receiving element.” The point on Escalano’s “at least one connecting element (i.e., the end of Escalano’s wire which connects to Escalano’s “receiving element”) is such a “second electrical contact” as claimed. The point on Escalano’s “receiving element” at which Escalano’s wire connects to it is such a “first electrical contact” as claimed. Escalano’s “first and second electrical contacts” establish an electrical connection when joined together, as power is supplied via the connection.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Escalano additionally teaches:
wherein the at least one connecting element is configured to releasably connect the at least one extracorporeal component to the supporting element (Para. [0220], “The power supply unit 11 and the external rechargeable battery 9 are mounted to a belt 10 which is worn by the user;” compare Fig. 35 of the Present Drawings and Fig. 1 of Escalano).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of previously cited US 20180280708 A1 to Escalano et al. (“Escalano”) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of previously cited Non-Patent Literature "ECG Electrodes product comparison chart," 3M.com, https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1490883O/red-dot-ecg-electrodes-comparison-chart.pdf, accessed 5/18/2025 (2018) (“3M”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Vodermayer and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer and Escalano does not disclose:
wherein the positioning patch further comprises a partially folded protective film disposed an exposed side of the adhesive and configured to protect the adhesive
3M is a product brochure for selecting “optimal adhesion” in electrode leads. 3M is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both 3M and the Present Invention are concerned with transcutaneous energy transfer (see 3M at Top Paragraph; Present Specification at Para. [0003]). In both 3M and the Present Invention, the pertinent adhesive is purposed for reliably securing an energy transfer means to a patient’s skin. 3M would therefore have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem of transcutaneous energy transfer. 3M is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
3M teaches:
wherein the positioning patch further comprises a partially folded protective film disposed an exposed side of the adhesive and configured to protect the adhesive (Column labeled “Adult/Pediatric,” Model No. “2330/2360” is indicated as having a “Polyester Film” backing, and is shown partially folded over in its picture).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer and Escalano with the teachings of 3M (i.e., to include such a positioning patch as taught by 3M in the device of combined Vodermayer and Escalano) in order to provide optimal adhesion (3M at Top Paragraph).
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”), US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) and previously cited US 20180280708 A1 to Escalano et al. (“Escalano”) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20170143977 A1 to Kaib et al. (“Kaib”).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano does not disclose:
wherein the supporting element comprises a first fixing element, and wherein the receiving element comprises a second fixing element, and wherein the first fixing element and the second fixing element are configured to fix the receiving element and the supporting element,
and wherein the first fixing element and the second fixing element comprising one of: a hook-and-loop fastener, a mechanical fastener, or a magnetic fastener.
Kaib describes “Garments for wearable medical devices” (Title). Kaib is analogous art.
Kaib teaches:
wherein the supporting element comprises a first fixing element, and wherein the receiving element comprises a second fixing element, and wherein the first fixing element and the second fixing element are configured to fix the receiving element and the supporting element, and wherein the first fixing element and the second fixing element comprising one of: a hook-and-loop fastener, a mechanical fastener, or a magnetic fastener (Para. [0200], “For example, the communications module 408 may include a red hook-and-loop fastener and the appropriate location to attach the communications module 408 to the garment may also include a red hook-and-loop fastener. To aid in assembly, certain components may include one type of attachment mechanism (e.g., snaps) and others may include a different type (e.g., hook-and-loop fasteners, magnets, or buttons).”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano with the teachings of Kaib (i.e., to attach Vodermayer’s coils to Escalano’s vest using such complementary hook and loop fastener pieces as taught by Kaib) in order to encourage the user to attach components at the correct location (Kaib at Para. [0200]).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Escalano additionally teaches:
wherein the supporting element further comprises at least one belt for fixing the supporting element to the patient’s body (Fig. 12, see Annotated Fig. 12, above; Para. [0044], “For example, at least a part of the external transmitter apparatus may be connected to a belt and/or garment such as a vest or short which may be worn by the user.”).
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano does not disclose:
and at least one pocket for receiving the extracorporeal component
Kaib describes “Garments for wearable medical devices” (Title). Kaib is analogous art.
Kaib teaches:
and at least one pocket for receiving the at least one extracorporeal component (Para. [0035], “…one or more modules of the plurality of modules is configured to be secured within corresponding one or more pockets provided in the garment.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano with the teachings of Kaib (i.e., to modify the belt of Escalano to include such a pocket as taught by Kaib) in order to better secure the device (Kaib at Para. [0035]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”), US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) and previously cited US 20180280708 A1 to Escalano et al. (“Escalano”) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20170203104 A1 to Nageri et al. (“Nageri”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano does not disclose:
wherein the receiving element further comprises a groove element, and wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a tongue for insertion into the groove element
Nageri describes “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAKING AND USING CONNECTOR CONTACT ARRAYS FOR ELECTRICAL STIMULATION SYSTEMS” (Title). Nageri is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both Nageri and the Present Invention are concerned with transcutaneous energy transfer (see Nageri at Title, Abstract; Present Specification at Para. [0003]). Nageri is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Nageri teaches:
wherein the receiving element further comprises a groove element, and wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a tongue for insertion into the groove element (Para. [0007], “In at least some embodiments, the first portion and the second portion of the connector housing have a tongue and groove arrangement…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano with the teachings of Nageri (i.e., to use such a tongue and groove securement means as taught by Nageri in the receiving element of combined Vodermayer and Escalano) because such a modification entails a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result.
The prior art contains a device (i.e., the receiving element having an unspecified securement means of Escalano) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (i.e., Escalano’s unspecified securement means) with other components (i.e., tongue and groove securement means).
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. For example, Nageri describes such a tongue and groove securement means at Para. [0007].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”), US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) and previously cited US 20180280708 A1 to Escalano et al. (“Escalano”) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of previously cited Non-Patent Literature Robin Mack-Haynes, "Fasteners Made Easy," New Mexico State University, https://pubs.nmsu.edu/_c/C232.pdf, accessed 5/18/2025 (Year: 2019) (“Mack-Haynes”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano does not disclose:
wherein the receiving element further comprises a hook, and wherein the at least one connecting element comprises an eyelet configured to receive the hook
Mack-Haynes describes different fasteners for garments and their functions (Pg. 1, First Paragraph). Mack-Haynes is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor, as both Mack-Haynes and the Present Invention (i.e., the invention of Claim 22) are concerned with securement means for wearables. (see Mack-Haynes at Pg. 1, First Paragraph; Present Specification at Para. [0033]). Mack-Haynes is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Mack-Haynes teaches:
wherein the receiving element further comprises a hook, and wherein the at least one connecting element comprises an eyelet configured to receive the hook (Pg. 2, “Hooks and Eyes” heading).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano with the teachings of Mack-Haynes (i.e., to use such a hook and eye securement means as taught by Mack-Haynes in the receiving element of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano) because such a modification entails a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result.
The prior art contains a device (i.e., the receiving element having an unspecified securement means of Escalano) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (i.e., Escalano’s unspecified securement means) with other components (i.e., hook and eye securement means).
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. For example, Mack-Haynes describes such a hook and eye securement means at Pg. 2, “Hooks and Eyes” heading.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 9,427,509 B2 to Vodermayer et al. (“Vodermayer”) in view of US 20150200562 A1 to Kilinc et al. (“Kilinc”), US 2009/0212637 A1 to Baarman et al. (“Baarman”) and previously cited US 20180280708 A1 to Escalano et al. (“Escalano”) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of previously cited US 20150196076 A1 to Billingslea et al. (“Billingslea”).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
The combination of Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano does not disclose:
wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a cable holder configured to guide a cable
Billingslea describes a “Medical Equipment Garment T-Shirt” (Title) used in conjunction with heart pumps such as LVADs (Abstract). Billingslea is analogous art.
Billingslea teaches:
wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a cable holder configured to guide a cable (Claim 5, “…wherein the cooperating fasteners for the front compartment encasement is secured with Velcro hook and loop type fasteners.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano with the teachings of Billingslea (i.e., to further include such a cable holder as taught by Billingslea in the device of combined Vodermayer, Baarman, Kilinc and Escalano) in order to ensure sealed and stable attachment (Billingslea at Para. [0006]).
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 CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796