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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Response, filed 4/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-15, 17-18 and 32-34 under Carbunaru in view of Meskens have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carbunaru in view of Large et al. US 2014/0139178.
On page 10, and in regards to the Carbunaru disclosure, applicant argues that the Non-Final Office Action (dated 1/28/2026) did not identify where Carbunaru discloses a driver configured to simultaneously drive two or more Tx coils of parallel branches. However, on page 3 of the Non-Final Office Action it is stated “Carbunaru also discloses that the microcontroller 300 (figure 6C) drives the current Itest.” Carbunaru is disclosing that the microcontroller likely includes the driver. This is seen in figure 6C, where the microcontroller controls provides Itest as well as controlling the switch matrix 220 which includes switches 212a and 213a. Each set of switches controls a charging coil 210a-d. What this demonstrates is that the current Itest as well as the individual control of each charging coil is taking place in the microcontroller, therefore the microcontroller either includes the capability of providing the drive current or it includes a current driver. This is not known from the Carbunaru disclosure; however both drive current for the coils and independent switch control is occurring in the microcontroller. Prior to the claim amendments Meskens was used as a secondary reference to demonstrate a coil driver. However, Meskens discloses individual coil drivers for each coil and not a single coil driver. Therefore Meskens has been replaced with Large et al. US 2014/0139178 to demonstrate a single coil driver 32 (figure 8C) connected in parallel with three separate coils 30a, 30b and 30c. Each coil can be energized simultaneously (paragraph 0021 and 0057) or individually via switches (paragraph 0061).
Therefore all previous rejections are withdrawn in favor of be below rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 od objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 the claim recites “The system of claim 5, 1”, this should read “The system of claim 5”, the “1” should be struck through. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-18 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbunaru et al. US 2012/0119699 previously cited in view of Large et al. US 2014/0139178.
Regarding claim 1: Carbunaru discloses a system which includes an external charger 200 (figure 6C) and multiple microstimulators 100i-x (figure 6C); the external charger 200 (figure 6C) includes coils 210a-d (figure 6C) which are connected in parallel as shown in figure 6C, the external charger further includes switches 212a/213a (figure 6C), the switches 212a/213a (figure 6C) and coils 210a-d (figure 6C) are considered to be branches. Carbunaru further discloses a controller 300 (“uC”, figure 6C) which independently controls each switch 212a/213a (figure 6C) to connect the associated coil for power transmission through coils 210a-d (figure 6C) which are the transmission coils (paragraph 0053, note that Itest is the current from the microcontroller that drives the coils and controls the coils). Carbunaru also discloses that the microcontroller 300 (figure 6C) drives the current Itest. However, although coil driver is likely found in the microcontroller, Carbunaru is silent as to a separate singular driver connected to the coils to drive the current in the coils. It is noted that Carbunaru is considered to disclose that the controller is configured to independently disconnect branches of the coil circuits 210a-d via switch matrix 220 (figure 6C) which includes 212a and 213a. Further with respect to figure 6C, only one set of switches is shown 212a/213a which connects to fig. coil 210a. This is for illustrative purposes, the circuit would also include switches 212b, 212c, 212d, 213b,213c and 213d. Switches 212b and 213b would connect to antenna 210b, switches 212c and 213c would connect to antenna 210c and switches 212d and 213d would connect to antenna 210d. The configuration provides for the drive current Itest to be provided to the switching matrix 220 (figure 6C), with the current driven by the microcontroller and not necessarily (but likely) by a driver.
Therefore, Carbunaru discloses the claimed invention however Carbunaru does not disclose a single driver (note that single is not used in the claim language, however in light of compact prosecution this will be considered a single driver). Large however teaches of a single driver circuit 32 (figure 8C) which is in parallel (paragraph 0034) to three charging coils 30a-30c (figure 8C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carbunaru to include a single current driver, separate from the controller/microcontroller (Large paragraph 0050), which is also connected in parallel to each coil, as taught by Large, in order to provide inductive charging (paragraph 0047 of Large).
Regarding claim 2: Carbunaru discloses the switches 212a/213a are connected in series (figure 6C).
Regarding claim 3: Carbunaru disclose that the combination of the coil with a capacitor is a resonant circuit or tank circuit to produce AC voltage (paragraph 0015). As is seen in figure 3B the charging coil is connected to capacitor 156 and this is considered to be a resonant circuit.
Regarding claim 5: Carbunaru discloses implantable devices 147i-x (“microstimulators”, figure 6C), this shows three microstimulators more are contemplated.
Regarding claim 6: Carbunaru discloses independent control of charging via the switches (paragraphs 0053, 0060).
Regarding claim 7: Carbunaru discloses sensors within the implants to measure temperature (paragraph 0045) the temperature data is reported back to the external charger and is used to replace coupling data (paragraph 0045) the coupling data is used to determine if the coils should or should not be used via the switch matrix(paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 8: Carbunaru discloses that the system is configured to simultaneously charge at least two implantable devices (paragraphs 0034, 0060, 0075), determine when charging for the devices is complete (paragraph 0014), control switches to prevent the driver from driving the Tx coil for an implant when charging is complete (paragraphs 0014, 0053) and continue charging an implant if charging is not complete (paragraphs 0014, 0034, 0053, 0060, 0075).
Regarding claim 9: Carbunaru discloses that the controller receives feedback from each individual implant using uplink communication to detect coil alignment (paragraph 0044, also 0022, 0067, 0069).
Regarding claim 10: Carbunaru discloses that the controller receives feedback from an uplink from each individual implant to detect status of charge using feedback (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 11: Carbunaru discloses that the controller is configured receive feedback via an uplink from each implant, the feedback is based on a power signal corresponding to voltage levels (paragraphs 0016, 0044-46).
Regarding claim 12: Carbunaru discloses each coil branch includes a coil corresponding to an implant, in figures 5C and 6C each coil 1471-x corresponds to an associated implant 1001-x, the controller receives an alignment signal from each device which is considered to include the controller determining alignment (paragraphs 0022, 0067 and 0069), connect the first and/or second coil branch to the driver (in figures 5C and 6C each coil is connected via switches), each coil is energized and driven to produce a charging field, each device communicates back to the external controller (paragraphs 0044-46).
Regarding claim 13: Carbunaru discloses using the driver to drive two or more coils to produce a charge field for recharging corresponding to the implantable devices (paragraphs 0019-22, 0044-0046, 0053); receiving a signal that charging is complete and should be stopped (paragraph 0014); responding to the signal by disconnecting the coil to the implant (paragraphs 0014 and 0019) and continuing to charge another device (paragraphs 0014, 0019 and 0044).
Regarding claim 14: Carbunaru discloses that the signal indicates that an implant is fully charged (paragraphs 0014 and 0019).
Regarding claims 15 and 17: Carbunaru discloses that the signal is a temperature signal from a sensor within the implant (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 18: Carbunaru disclose that the two coils are temporarily disconnected based on high temperature (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 32: Carbunaru discloses a system which includes an external charger 200 (figure 6C) and multiple microstimulators 100i-x (figure 6C); the external charger 200 (figure 6C) includes coils 210a-d (figure 6C) which are connected in parallel as shown in figure 6C, the external charger further includes switches 212a/213a (figure 6C), the switches 212a/213a (figure 6C) and coils 210a-d (figure 6C) are considered to be branches. Carbunaru further discloses a controller 300 (“uC”, figure 6C) which independently controls each switch 212a/213a (figure 6C) to connect the associated coil for power transmission through coils 210a-d (figure 6C) which are the transmission coils (paragraph 0053, note that Itest is the current from the microcontroller that drives the coils and controls the coils). Carbunaru also discloses that the microcontroller 300 (figure 6C) drives the current Itest. However, although coil driver is likely found in the microcontroller, Carbunaru is silent as to a separate singular driver connected to the coils to drive the current in the coils. It is noted that Carbunaru is considered to disclose that the controller is configured to independently disconnect branches of the coil circuits 210a-d via switch matrix 220 (figure 6C) which includes 212a and 213a. Further with respect to figure 6C, only one set of switches is shown 212a/213a which connects to fig. coil 210a. This is for illustrative purposes, the circuit would also include switches 212b, 212c, 212d, 213b,213c and 213d. Switches 212b and 213b would connect to antenna 210b, switches 212c and 213c would connect to antenna 210c and switches 212d and 213d would connect to antenna 210d. The configuration provides for the drive current Itest to be provided to the switching matrix 220 (figure 6C), with the current driven by the microcontroller and not necessarily (but likely) by a driver.
Therefore, Carbunaru discloses the claimed invention however Carbunaru does not disclose a single driver (note that single is not used in the claim language, however in light of compact prosecution this will be considered a single driver). Large however teaches of a single driver circuit 32 (figure 8C) which is in parallel (paragraph 0034) to three charging coils 30a-30c (figure 8C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carbunaru to include a single current driver, separate from the controller/microcontroller (Large paragraph 0050), which is also connected in parallel to each coil, as taught by Large, in order to provide inductive charging (paragraph 0047 of Large).
Regarding claim 33: Carbunaru discloses the claimed invention, however Carbunaru uses a single driver, within the controller, to drive each coil. Stated differently, Carbunaru does not disclose dedicated drivers for each coil circuit with a controller which independently controls the dedicated drivers to independently control whether the coils are driven which includes controlling a first driver to cease driving a first coil while the second driver continues to drive the second coil.
Large however, teaches of individual drivers 32a-c (figure 8a), where each driver 32a-c (figure 8a) is operably connected to dedicated to a coil 30a-c. Large further teaches of a controller associated with the driver circuits to monitor and control switching off and on of the driver circuits (paragraph 0050). This is considered to teach dedicated drivers for each coil circuit and a controller which can choose which circuit is on and which circuit is off. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carbunaru to include dedicated drivers for each coil and individually controlling each driver to either charge or be disconnected, as taught by Large, in order to provide independent control (paragraph 0055)
Regarding claim 34: Carbunaru disclose each coil branch in parallel (figure 5C and paragraph 0053.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbunaru et al. US 2012/0119699 previously cited in view of Large et al. US 2014/0139178 and further in view of Shinoda US 2012/0039102 previously cited.
Regarding claim 4: Carbunaru/Large discloses the claimed invention however Carbunaru/Large does not disclose the switch, resonant circuit and Tx coil in a series connection. Shinoda however teaches of a resonant capacitor in series with the coil and a switch unit (paragraph 0009). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carbunaru/Large to include resonant capacitor in series with the coil and a switch unit as taught by Shinoda, in order to bypass the resonant capacitor.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbunaru et al. US 2012/0119699 previously cited in view of Large et al. US 2014/0139178 and further in view of Chen et al. US 2009/0118796 previously cited.
Regarding claim 16: Carbunaru/Large discloses the claimed invention however the temperature sensor of Carbunaru is within the implanted device and not on the external charging coil. Chen however teaches of an external system which includes a temperature sensor on the external coil assembly 260 (figure 3 and claims 10, 13). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carbunaru/Large to include a temperature sensor on the external coil assembly, as taught by Chen, in order to determine the temperature of the external coil in order to maintain a safe temperature (paragraph 0021, Chen).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbunaru et al. US 2012/0119699 previously cited in view of Large et al. US 2014/0139178 and further in view of Dellamano et al. US 2017/0189699 previously cited.
Regarding claim 35: Carbunaru /Large discloses the claimed invention however Carbunaru /Large does not discloses the coils in a series connection and the controller can independently control each coil. Dellamano however teaches of transmission coils in a series connection (paragraph 0035) as well as independently controlling each coil (paragraph 0040). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Carbunaru/Large to include in a series connection and the controller can independently control each coil, as taught by Dellamano, in order to charge multiple implants (paragraph 0040, Dellamano).
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 PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights