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 combined with the claim amendments have been fully considered and are found persuasive and non-persuasive with respect to the previous rejection(s). With regard to the prior art rejection, applicant contends that the prior art of Schommer fails to expressly obviate the automatic adjustment of amplitude of the magnetic field; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees and points to sections in the prior art where the current which drives the magnetic coil is lowered which would necessarily result in adjustment of the amplitude of the magnetic field to reduce temperature. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended to recite the step to “determine, in real time, a charging rate…”; however, this in combination with the other limitations of the claim, fails to be supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The examiner is unable to find any discussion in the specification with regard to performing this step in real-time. It is required applicant indicate where support lies for this limitation or amend the claims to align with the scope of the invention as originally filed.
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under the same rationale as being dependent upon claims 1 and 13 and their limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 of this title, 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, 4-5, 7-14, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Ambrosio (US 2012/0157755; hereinafter “D’Ambrosio”) in view of Schommer et al. (US 2005/0075700; hereinafter “Schommer”).
Regarding claim 1, D’Ambrosio discloses a controller of a system comprising an implantable medical device configured to receive energy from a transcutaneous energy transfer system (TETS) (e.g. ¶¶ 7-10), the controller comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive inputs from at least one of: at least one internal component of the system (e.g. ¶¶ 38), wherein the inputs comprise: a charge level of a battery of the system (e.g. ¶¶ 25); and temperature inputs of the system including a temperature input from the at least one internal component (e.g. ¶¶ 38); and determine a charging rate for charging a battery of the system internal to a patient based on at least the charge level of the battery of the system and the one or more temperature inputs and change a current charging rate for charging the battery to the determined charging rate for use in controlling a rate of power transfer while the implantable medical device is receiving energy for recharging the battery of the system internal to the patient (e.g. ¶¶ 39-41 – “charging rate can be adjusted based on battery cell temperature to prevent prolonged periods of time at high temperatures.”).
D’Ambrosio fails to expressly disclose the use of a temperature input from the at least one external component of the system and automatically adjusting an amplitude of a magnetic field of the system for charging the battery to the determined charging rate based on both internal and external component temperature inputs. In the same field of endeavor, Schommer discloses receiving temperature inputs from both internal and external components of the system and determining a charging rate and changing the charging rate in order to avoid heat build up on the components (e.g. ¶¶ 89), where the amplitude of the magnetic field – or current supplied to the magnetic coil in the prior art – is automatically adjusted based on the temperature inputs, in order to necessarily minimize the magnetic field and reduce temperatures (e.g. ¶¶ 109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the known technique of receiving temperature inputs from both internal and external components of the system and determining a charging rate and changing the charging rate, as taught by Schommer, to improve the similar device of D’Ambrosio, in the same way by avoiding excessive heating of the components.
Regarding claim 13, D’Ambrosio discloses a system comprising: an implantable medical device configured to receive energy from a transcutaneous energy transfer system (TETS) (e.g. ¶¶ 7-10); and an internal controller configured to electrically communicate with the implantable medical device (e.g. ¶¶ 10), the internal controller comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive inputs from at least one of: at least one internal component of the system (e.g. ¶¶ 38), wherein the inputs comprise: a charge level of a battery of the system (e.g. ¶¶ 25); and temperature inputs of the system including a temperature input from the at least one internal component (e.g. ¶¶ 38); and determine a charging rate for charging a battery of the system internal to a patient based on at least the charge level of the battery of the system and the one or more temperature inputs and change a current charging rate for charging the battery to the determined charging rate for use in controlling a rate of power transfer while the implantable medical device is receiving energy for recharging the battery of the system internal to the patient (e.g. ¶¶ 39-41 – “charging rate can be adjusted based on battery cell temperature to prevent prolonged periods of time at high temperatures.”).
D’Ambrosio fails to expressly disclose the use of a temperature input from the at least one external component of the system and automatically adjusting an amplitude of a magnetic field of the system for charging the battery to the determined charging rate based on both internal and external component temperature inputs. In the same field of endeavor, Schommer discloses receiving temperature inputs from both internal and external components of the system and determining a charging rate and changing the charging rate in order to avoid heat build up on the components (e.g. ¶¶ 89), where the amplitude of the magnetic field – or current supplied to the magnetic coil in the prior art – is automatically adjusted based on the temperature inputs, in order to necessarily minimize the magnetic field and reduce temperatures (e.g. ¶¶ 109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the known technique of receiving temperature inputs from both internal and external components of the system and determining a charging rate and changing the charging rate, as taught by Schommer, to improve the similar device of D’Ambrosio, in the same way by avoiding excessive heating of the components.
Regarding claim 20, D’Ambrosio teaches a method for a controller of a system comprising an implantable medical device configured to receive energy from a transcutaneous energy transfer system (TETS) (e.g. ¶¶ 7-10), the method comprising: receiving, by processing circuitry of the controller, at least one of: at least one internal component of the system (e.g. ¶¶ 38), wherein the inputs comprise: a charge level of a battery of the system (e.g. ¶¶ 25); and temperature inputs of the system including a temperature input from the at least one internal component (e.g. ¶¶ 38); and determine a charging rate for charging a battery of the system internal to a patient based on at least the charge level of the battery of the system and the one or more temperature inputs and change a current charging rate for charging the battery to the determined charging rate for use in controlling a rate of power transfer while the implantable medical device is receiving energy for recharging the battery of the system internal to the patient (e.g. ¶¶ 39-41 – “charging rate can be adjusted based on battery cell temperature to prevent prolonged periods of time at high temperatures.”).
D’Ambrosio fails to expressly disclose the use of a temperature input from the at least one external component of the system and automatically adjusting an amplitude of a magnetic field of the system for charging the battery to the determined charging rate based on both internal and external component temperature inputs. In the same field of endeavor, Schommer discloses receiving temperature inputs from both internal and external components of the system and determining a charging rate and changing the charging rate in order to avoid heat build up on the components (e.g. ¶¶ 89), where the amplitude of the magnetic field – or current supplied to the magnetic coil in the prior art – is automatically adjusted based on the temperature inputs, in order to necessarily minimize the magnetic field and reduce temperatures (e.g. ¶¶ 109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to use the known technique of receiving temperature inputs from both internal and external components of the system and determining a charging rate and changing the charging rate, as taught by Schommer, to improve the similar device of D’Ambrosio, in the same way by avoiding excessive heating of the components.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, D’Ambrosio discloses the one or more temperature inputs comprise: temperature inputs from internal components comprising: a battery temperature of the battery or a controller temperature of the controller (e.g. ¶¶ 38); and as noted in the independent claim rejection above, Schommer obviates the temperature inputs from external components comprising: a transmitter case temperature of a transmitter case or a surface temperature of a surface of at least one TETS component (e.g. ¶¶ 89, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, D’Ambrosio discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the one or more temperature inputs satisfy the temperature condition when at least one of the one or more temperature inputs is equal to or greater than a corresponding temperature threshold value (e.g. ¶¶ 39 – where it is inherent that the temperature inputs are compared to threshold values to control the charging rate).
Regarding claim 16, D’Ambrosio discloses the internal controller is further configured to select among a group of predefined rates for charging (e.g. ¶¶ 39 – where the charging rate is predefined based on the battery cell temperature).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 17, D’Ambrosio discloses the implantable medical device is a ventricular assist device (VAD) (e.g. ¶¶ 22, 36, etc.) and wherein the inputs further comprise a speed of a VAD pump, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the charging rate from charging the battery of the system internal to the patient further based on the speed of the VAD pump (e.g. ¶¶ 38-39, 41, 44, etc.).
Regarding claims 7-12 and 18-19, D’Ambrosio fails to expressly disclose the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a time of day; responsive to determining that the time of day is a first time, cause the battery of the system to charge at a first charging rate; and responsive to determining that the time of day is a second time, cause the battery of the system to charge at a second charging rate, wherein the first time is earlier in the day than the second time, and wherein the first charging rate is different from the second charging rate. In the same field of endeavor, Schommer discloses processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a time of day; responsive to determining that the time of day is a first time, cause the battery of the system to charge at a first charging rate; and responsive to determining that the time of day is a second time, cause the battery of the system to charge at a second charging rate, wherein the first time is earlier in the day than the second time, and wherein the first charging rate is different from the second charging rate (e.g. ¶¶ 19) in order to provide the most optimal scheme for charging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known technique of adjusting charging rates based on the time of day, as taught by Schommer, to the known device of D’Ambrosio, ready for improvement, to improve the device by improving the battery life, performance and efficiency of the device.
Regarding claims 21-22, D’Ambrosio discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to adjust a current charging rate for charging the battery to the determined charging rate for use in controlling a rate of power transfer while the implantable medical device is receiving energy for recharging the battery of the system internal to the patient (e.g. ¶¶ 36-39, 41, 44, etc).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Ambrosio in view of Schommer, further in view of Brozek (WO 95/23000; hereinafter “Brozek”). D’Ambrosio fails to expressly disclose determining whether the one or more temperature inputs satisfy a temperature condition; and responsive to determining that the one or more temperature inputs satisfy the temperature condition, generate a notification that indicates that the system is operating at a high temperature. In the same field of endeavor, Brozek discloses monitoring the temperature to ensure that the temperature does not increase too much in order to detect an overcharge and generate a notification to alert the programmer or patient (e.g. Page 40, ll 29-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to apply the known technique of an alert for temperature reading too high, as taught by Brozek, to the known device of D’Ambrosio, ready for improvement, to improve the device by ensuring the patient is aware of the device getting too hot.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights