DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissler (US 2017/0228627, of record) in view of Martin (US 10402600).
Regarding claim 15, Geissler discloses a medical implant comprising: an integrated port comprising: a housing comprising: a first portion coupled to a second portion ([0107], Fig. 6: “valve assembly 610” is second portion, “integrated port dome 620” is first portion); wherein the first portion and the second portion comprise different materials (Fig. 6: “coil 616” and “patch 622- are of different materials); and a cover over an opening into the housing (Fig. 6: “patch 622” is considered a cover as shown in Fig. 7; “integrated port dome 310” performs a similar function of covering); wherein the first portion faces the cover and allows transmission of electromagnetic signals through the first portion, the first portion being between the second portion and the cover (Fig. 6: “coil 616” emits electromagnetic signals which penetrate at least the first portion, i.e. integrated port dome 620”). Geissler does not explicitly disclose that the second portion includes a material that blocks, attenuates, or prevents transmission of RFID signals from the electromagnetic coil through the second portion in a direction away from the cover. However, Martin teaches a reflective material that blocks transmission of RFID signals (4:6-36). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the reflective/deflective surface of Martin to the claimed second portion as taught by Geissler, as to provide a manner of concentrating and directing radiation for detection.
Regarding claim 16, Geissler discloses a flexible shell ([0104]: “implant shell may be made of silicone”); wherein the cover of the integrated port is coupled to an inner/outer surface of the shell (Fig. 7A: the patch or integrated port dome is coupled to an outer surface of “shell 700”).
Regarding claim 17, while Geissler does not explicitly disclose that the cover is coupled to the shell with an adhesive, Geissler teaches sealing or bonding is used for attachment to the shell ([0074]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply an adhesive, as to provide enhanced sealing against the shell.
Regarding claim 18, Geissler discloses that there is a shell including silicone ([0102], [0104]: “implant shell may be made of silicone”) and that the cover of the integrated port comprises silicone ([0106]: “integrated port dome 310 may be made of a self-sealing material, such as a silicone material”).
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 Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793