DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 6/26/2026
Claims 1,3,6,10,11,16, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2,4, and 9 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 were newly added.
Hereon, claims 1-23 are currently pending; claims 1-23 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper dependent. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-8,10,11,13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carbunaru et al, (Carbunaru), (USNO.2012/0119699).
As for claim 1, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIG. 7C a charging device comprising: at least one coil provided on a support substate (via ref’s coil plate) contained in a housing (ref’ external charging housing), wherein the at least one coil wirelessly transfers energy to an implantable medical device; and a coil manipulator (ref’s actuator) that adjusts a configuration of the at least one coil within the housing by at least one of moving and rotating the support substrate (par.[ 0007-0014,0034,0048,0058]).
As for claim 3, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIG. 7C the coil manipulator moves the at least one coil within the housing by translating a position of the at least one coil within the housing.
As for claim 5, Carbunaru discloses at least one sensor (via ref’s microstimulator) that provides a sensor reading to a charging engine (par.[0045-0049]).
As for claim 6, Carbunaru discloses the charging engine instructs the coil manipulator to adjust the configuration of the at least one coil provided on the support substrate based on the sensor reading (par.[0045-0049])
As for claim 7, Carbunaru discloses the sensor reading provides an indication of an efficiency with which the at least one coil is wirelessly transferring energy to the implantable medical device (par.[0045-0049]).
As for claim 8, Carbunaru discloses the sensor reading provides an indication of a distance between the at least one coil and a receiver coil in the implantable medical device (par.[0045-0049]).
As for claim 10, Carbunaru discloses and shows in Fig. 7C the at least one coil comprises a wire mounted on the support substrate.
As for claim 11, Carbunaru discloses and shows in Fig. 7C the at least one coil comprises a conductive material printed (via ref’s coil and pcb) on the support substrate
As for claim 13, Carbunaru discloses the at least one coil comprises an array of coils (par.[0054]).
As for claim 14, Carbunaru discloses coil manipulator comprises one or more electrical switches that selectively activate and deactivate coils in the array of coils (par.[0053])
As for claim 15, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIG. 7C configuration of the at least one coil is adjusted to maximize charging efficiency between the at least one coil and the implantable medical device (par.[0048])
As for claim 16, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIG. 7C a system comprising: a chargeable device having a receiver coil; and a charging device comprising: a charging coil provided on a support substrate (via ref’s coil plate) that wirelessly transfers energy to the receiver coil; and a coil manipulator (ref’s actuator) that changes a configuration of the charging coil to improve an efficiency with which the energy is wirelessly transferred to the receiver coil during a charging session, wherein changing the configuration of the charging coil comprises at least one of moving and rotating the support substate (par.[ 0007-0014,0034,0048,0058]).
As for claim 17, Carbunaru discloses at least one sensor that provides a sensor reading to determine an efficiency with which the energy is wirelessly transferred to the receiver coil during the charging session (par.[0045-0046]).
As for claim 18, Carbunaru discloses the at least one sensor comprises one or more of an electromagnetic sensor, an optical sensor, an acoustic sensor, a mechanical sensor, and a thermal sensor (par.[0045-0046]).
As for claim 19, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIG. 7C wherein the coil manipulator at least one of physically moves the charging coil or adjusts an RF field produced by the charging coil
As for claim 20, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIGs. 7C and 8 a system comprising: a housing (ref’ external charging housing); a charging coil provided on a support substrate (via ref’s coil plate) contained within the housing; and a coil manipulator (ref’s actuator) that physically moves the charging coil in the housing (par.[0007-0014,0034,0058]).
As for claim 21, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIGs. 7C and 8 moving and rotating the support substrate adjusts an RF field produced by the charging coil.
As for claim 22, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIGs. 7C and 8 adjusting the RF field produced by the charging coil comprises placing a stronger portion of the RF field over the receiver coil in the chargeable device.
As for claim 23, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIGs. 7C and 8
at least one sensor that provides a sensor reading to determine an efficiency with which the energy is wirelessly transferred to the receiver coil during the charging session (par.[0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schommer et al, (Schommer), (USNO.2005/0075700).
As claim 12, Carbunaru discloses all limitations, but differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose at least one coil comprises a single coil.
Schommer discloses and shows in Figs. 3 and 12 Schommer discloses and shows in at least one coil comprises a single coil (par.[0060])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Carbunaru by using the at least one coil within the housing for advantages such as providing more closely be aligned with secondary coil (par.[0060]) , as taught by Schommer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/07 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
Applicant respectfully submits that Schommer does not remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Carbunaru with respect to the feature of a coil manipulator that adjusts a configuration of the at least one coil within the housing by at least one of moving and rotating the support substrate, as recited in claim 1
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits, Carbunaru discloses and shows in FIG. 7C a charging device comprising: at least one coil provided on a support substate (via ref’s coil plate) contained in a housing (ref’ external charging housing), wherein the at least one coil wirelessly transfers energy to an implantable medical device; and a coil manipulator (ref’s actuator) that adjusts a configuration of the at least one coil within the housing by at least one of moving and rotating the support substrate (par.[ 0007-0014,0034,0048,0058]) as claimed necessitated by amendment
For at least the reasons provided above, the applicant arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive. The applicant argues that dependent claims are patentable for similar reasons and are also not persuasive. The applicant further argues that since dependent claims depend on the argued independent claim; they are patentable at least by virtue of their dependencies. Since the applicant's arguments regarding independent claims are not persuasive, the applicant's arguments regarding dependent claims are also not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. 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.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights