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 (AA) filed on 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
The distortion of Alaie is a surface effect not a bulk effect (AA, pg. 14, ¶3).
Alaie is silent on a sensor body comprising a material having an ordered structure that comprises an acoustic band structure or acoustic band gap or that comprises a lattice structure or lattice-like structure as claimed (AA, pg. 15, ¶1).
Regarding point (i), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As best understood, a bulk effect is defined as a change to the entire shape and volume of a material. As discussed in Alaie, deflection of the films causes a change in the volume of the pressure cells (Alaie, [0028]; also see AA pg. 13, ¶3). Examiner further asserts that if the distortion of Alaie was in fact a surface effect then one would expect a deformation in the films to have no effect on the material body (i.e., the pressure cells). As discussed in Alaie, this is not the case. Instead, deformation of the film layers directly effects the material body by changing the volume of the pressure cells [0028, 0054].
Regarding point (ii), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection (filed on 09/12/2025), Alaie discloses a sensor body (FIG. 2A-2B: 202, 204, and 206 together form the sensor body; [0037]) comprising a material (202/204; [0036]: film layers 202 include pressure cells 204) that comprises an ordered structure (FIG. 3; [0041]) that comprises (a) an acoustic band structure or acoustic band cap (optional) or that comprises (b) a lattice structure or lattice-like structure (see FIG. 2B which shows a ordered, repeating arrangement of cells 204).
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In re claim 20, the limitation “-the attachment device corresponds to at least one of a mechanical attachment device suturing or clamps or at least one of a chemical attachment device or an adhesive” should read “-the attachment device corresponds to at least one of a mechanical attachment device or suturing or clamps or at least one of a chemical attachment device or an adhesive”
In re claim 24, the limitation “wherein a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is at least 1 micrometer.” should read “wherein a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is at least one micrometer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 17, the limitation “the acoustic properties are at least one of an acoustic impedance, at least one of a mechanical property or the Young's modulus of the at least one material, a density of the at least one material, an acoustic band structure of the at least one material having an ordered structure, or an acoustic band gap of the at least one material having an ordered structure”, promotes a clarity concern. Specifically, it is unclear if “the at least one of a mechanical property or the Young’s modulus of the at least one material” should be considered as a single acoustic property or two separate acoustic properties (i.e., “a mechanical property of the at least one material” and “a Young’s modulus of the at least one material”). For examination purposes, the acoustic properties listed in claim 17 will be interpreted as follows: an acoustic impedance, a mechanical property of the at least one material, a Young’s modulus of the at least one material, a density of the at least one material, an acoustic band structure of the at least one material, or an acoustic band gap.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 16-19, and 24-26 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alaie et al. (US 2020/0359897).
In re claim 1, Alaie discloses an implantable sensor (FIG. 1: 102) for determining at least one parameter (abstract: “pressure”),
wherein the implantable sensor comprises a sensor body (FIG. 2A-2B: 202, 204, and 206 together form a sensor body; [0037]),
wherein the sensor body is responsive to the at least one parameter (FIG. 7; [0048]) ,
wherein the sensor body is configured to yield at least one response signal (FIG. 9: 906 “second
acoustic wave”) upon an interrogation of the sensor body with at least one interrogation signal (904 “first acoustic wave”) comprising acoustic waves ,
wherein the at least one response signal is associated with the at least one parameter [0054],
wherein the sensor body comprises at least one material (202/204; [0036]: film
layers (202) include pressure cells (204)) having an ordered structure (FIG. 3; [0041]), and
wherein the at least one response signal is associated with one or more bulk effects ([0054]: “deflect or stretch”) of the at least one material having an ordered structure [0054], and
wherein at least one of:
the at least one material having an ordered structure comprises at least one of an acoustic band structure or an acoustic band gap, and wherein said at least one of acoustic band structure or an acoustic band strap is configured to exhibit a change when the sensor body is subjected to the parameter, and wherein the change of at least one the acoustic band structure or the acoustic band gap correspondingly changes the response signal, or
the material having an ordered structure comprises at least one of
a lattice structure or a lattice-like structure (FIG. 2B: periodic arrangement of cells (204)), and
wherein said lattice or lattice-like structure is distorted when the sensor body is subjected to the parameter ([0048]; apparent as pressure causes the film layer to deform, which causes the lattice like structure to become distorted i.e., deviate from its original shape)
wherein the distortion of at least one of the lattice or the distortion of the lattice like structure correspondingly changes the response signal [0054].
In re claim 3, Alaie discloses
wherein at least one of:
the at least one material having an ordered structure is configured to exhibit a deformation when subjected to the at least one parameter ([0048]: “external pressure can deform the film layer”) , or
wherein the material having an ordered structure exhibits one or more acoustic properties, and wherein said one or more acoustic properties are configured to change when the sensor body is subjected to the parameter.
In re claim 4, Alaie discloses
wherein at least one of:
the at least one parameter is determinable from a change in the response signal (908; [0054]), or
wherein the at least one parameter is determinable from a change of the interrogation signal that yields a particular response signal.
In re claim 5, Alaie discloses
wherein the at least one material having an ordered structure comprises at least one of a lattice structure or a lattice-like structure (FIG. 2B) that is constituted by one or more cells (204), and wherein at least one of:
a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is in the order of magnitude of the speed of sound within the at least one material having an ordered structure divided by a frequency of the interrogation signal or a frequency of the response signal, or
wherein a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is in the range of 1 micrometer to 10 millimeter ([0040]: “pressure cells 204 can have a diameter between about 10 µm to 1000 µm”).
In re claim 6, Alaie discloses
wherein the at least one material having an ordered structure comprises at least one matrix (combinations of 204 would create at least one matrix) and one or more substructures (204) being arranged within the at least one matrix (FIG. 2B).
In re claim 7, Alaie discloses
wherein the sensor body is configured to adopt at least a first state (response to *a first frequency) and at least a second state (response to *a second frequency)
*As discussed in [0034] a transducer controller (122), via an emitter (108), can generate acoustic waves at varying frequencies. It is apparent that the controller could generate an acoustic wave at a first frequency followed by an acoustic wave at a second frequency. In this case, the senso body’s response ([0054]: “deflect or stretch”) to a specific frequency is considered to be the sensor state.
wherein the sensor body is configured to transform from its first state into its second state in response to the at least one parameter (apparent as a change in frequency would cause a change in sensor state),
wherein the sensor body, when in its first state, is configured to yield at least one first response signal upon an interrogation of the sensor body with the interrogation signal ([0054]: “second acoustic wave” associated with *a first frequency),
wherein the sensor body, when in its second state, is configured to yield at least one second response signal upon an interrogation of the sensor body with the interrogation signal ([0054]: “second acoustic wave” associated with *a second frequency), and
wherein at least one of the at least one first response signal or the at least one second response signal is associated with the one or more bulk effects of the at least one material having an ordered structure ([0054]: “deflect or stretch a film layer”).
In re claim 8, Alaie discloses
further comprising at least one of:
an encapsulation device (FIG. 5: 516) that partly or entirely encapsulates the sensor body [0045], or
at least one attachment device that allows or facilitates an attachment of the implantable sensor to at least one of hard tissue, soft tissue or an implant.
In re claim 9, Alaie discloses
wherein at least one of:
the implantable sensor is configured for a wireless interrogation (FIG. 1; apparent as acoustic signals (124) are transmitted wirelessly from an emitter (108) to the implantable sensor), or
the implantable sensor is configured for at least one of
an extracorporeal interrogation or
an intracorporeal interrogation ([0026]: “implanted, deployed or attached to biological tissue”)
In re claim 10, Alaie discloses
wherein at least one of:
the at least one parameter is at least one of strain, stress, a pressure, a swelling, an absorption, a temperature or at least one of a biological process or inflammation ([0026]: “pressure”), or
wherein the implantable sensor is a strain sensor.
In re claim 16, Alaie discloses
wherein the parameter is a physical parameter ([0026]; apparent as “pressure” is a physical parameter)
In re claim 17, Alaie discloses
wherein at least one of:
the deformation is at least one of
a one-dimensional or
a multi-dimensional spatial deformation along one or more spatial directions [0048] or
a shear deformation,
the acoustic properties are at least one of an acoustic impedance, at least one of a mechanical property or the Young's modulus of the at least one material, a density of the at least one material, an acoustic band structure of the at least one material having an ordered structure, or an acoustic band gap of the at least one material having an ordered structure, or
a change in at least one of the acoustic band structure or in the band gap resulting in at least one of a change of the reflectance of the at least one material having an ordered structure or in a change of the transmittance of the at least one material having an ordered structure.
In re claim 18, Alaie discloses,
wherein at least one of:
said change is at least one of a spectral change, a change of the intensity of the response signal, a change of the amplitude of the response signal, a phase change of the response signal or a modulation of the response signal ([0054]: “frequency shift”, “amplitude shift”), or
said particular response signal is a signal that is constant over time.
In re claim 19, Alaie discloses,
wherein at least one of:
an acoustic impedance of the matrix differs from the acoustic impedance of the substructure,
a distance (212) between the substructures is at least one of 0.5 micrometer or larger or in the range of 0.5 micrometer to 9 millimeter (FIG.2B; [0040]: “ridges 212 can have a width between about 1µm and 200 µm) ,or
a cross-section of an individual substructure is 0.1 micrometer or larger.
In re claim 24, Alaie discloses,
wherein the at least one material having an ordered structure comprises at least one of a lattice structure or a lattice-like structure (FIG. 2B) that is constituted by one or more cells (204), and
wherein at least one of:
- a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is in the order of magnitude of the speed of sound within the at least one material having an ordered structure divided by a frequency of the interrogation signal or a frequency of the response signal, or
- wherein a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is at least 1 micrometer ([0040]: “pressure cells 204 can have a diameter between about 10 µm to 1000 µm”).
In re claim 25, Alaie discloses,
wherein the at least one material having an ordered structure comprises at least one of a lattice structure or a lattice-like structure (FIG. 2B) that is constituted by one or more cells (204), and
wherein at least one of:
- a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is in the order of magnitude of the speed of sound within the at least one material having an ordered structure divided by a frequency of the interrogation signal or a frequency of the response signal, or
wherein a length of one cell with respect to a spatial direction is 10 millimeter or less ([0040]: “pressure cells 204 can have a diameter between about 10 µm to 1000 µm”).
In re claim 26, Alaie discloses,
wherein at least one of:
- an acoustic impedance of the matrix differs from the acoustic impedance of the substructure,
- a distance (212) between the substructures is at least one of 0.5 micrometer or larger or in the range of 0.5 micrometer to 9 millimeter (FIG.2B; [0040]: “ridges 212 can have a width between about 1µm and 200 µm), or
- a cross-section of an individual substructure is in the range of 1 micrometer to 100 micrometer.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alaie et al. (US 2020/0359897).
In re claim 20, Alaie discloses
wherein at least one of:
said encapsulation device is made of at least one of
a material or
an acoustically transparent material having an ordered structure, or
the attachment device corresponds to at least one of a mechanical attachment device suturing or clamps or at least one of a chemical attachment device or an adhesive.
Alaie does not disclose
wherein the material is an acoustically transparent material
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the encapsulation device out of an acoustically transparent material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worked in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose. MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, one would have been motivated to make this modification because using an acoustically transparent material allows an acoustic wave to reach a sensor body with minimal wave absorption or distortion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796