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 .
Claim Interpretation
Some presently pending claims contain recitations of 1) intended use, 2) functional limitation, and/or 3) language directed to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. It should be noted these types of recitations do not always have as much affect as Applicants would hope they do.
I should be noted a recitation of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. However, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. It is well established that a recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed, i.e., a functional limitation, does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963).
It should be further noted where the prior art reference is inherently capable of performing the function described in a functional limitation, such functional limitation does not define the claimed apparatus over such prior art reference, regardless of whether the prior art reference explicitly discusses such capacity for performing the recited function. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971). In addition, where there is reason to believe that such functional limitation may be an inherent characteristic of the prior art reference, Applicant is required to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art reference does not possess the characteristic relied upon. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d at 664, 169 USPQ at 566 (CCPA 1971).
And finally, a recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 177 USPQ 705 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BdPatApp & Inter 1987).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Schaffer (WO 2019/200046).
Regarding claim 1 and 3, Rundle et al. disclose an implantable medical device (prior art “Implantable pulse generators 5,” see [0002] and figures 1A-1B) comprising:
a housing (“can or housing 15,” see [0002] and figure 1A-1B) including electronic devices (“PCB 85,” see [0008] and figure 2) within the housing;
a header (“header 10,” see [0002]-[0003] and figures 1A-1B) attached to the housing and including one or more bores (“Passages 50 (shown in phantom in FIG. 1A),” see [0005] and figure 1A); and
a feedthrough assembly (comprising the collection of “feedthru 55,” see [0004] and figures 1A and 2) between the housing and the header;
wherein the electronic devices include a PCB (“PCB 85,” see [0008] and figure 2) electronically connected to the header by a feedthrough wire (“feedthru wire 60,” see [0004]-[0009] and figures 1A and 2) running from the feedthrough assembly to the PCB.
Rundle et al. fail to disclose:
1) the feedthrough wire includes a dome-shaped end, and
2) that the dome-shaped end is adapted to be attached to a connector ribbon by laser wire bonding.
It is extremely well known in physics and the electrical arts that providing rounded edges and hemispherical ends of electrically conductive elements/wires helps to avoid electric (and magnetic) field over-localization, overconcentration, and sparking/arcing. Hemispherical electrical contacts are in fact the most symmetric and therefore provide for the smoothest electrical fields and electrical current patterns. Hemispherical ends also help reduce the chances of undesirable sparking/arcing.
As an example, and like Rundle et al., Schaffer discloses an implantable medical device and having an electrical lead 130 that is connected to a printed circuit board and teaches providing the end of lead with a “hemispherical or otherwise rounded tips 44 on the electrodes formed from wires 103 may facilitate implantation while also providing electric field distribution. In particular, rounded tip 44 may be “sharper” than blunt tip 43 (Fig. 4C), in that rounded tip 44 poses less of an impediment to initial insertion than blunt tip 43. At the same time, however, rounded tip 44 avoids electric field localization which may occur with a “sharp” or fully pointed tip, such as tips 40, 41 shown in Figs. 4A and 4B,” see [0070] and figure 4D).
With respect to the recitation of “the dome-shaped end is adapted to be attached to a connector ribbon by laser wire bonding,” this is a recitation of 1) intended use, 2) functional limitation, and/or 3) language directed to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed and has been treated as such.
It should be further pointed out the connector ribbon is NOT POSITIVELY recited in claim 1 and therefore the combination of Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer makes obvious a dome-shaped wire end capable of having a connector ribbon laser wire bonded to it.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al., as taught by Schaffer, to provide the end of the feedthrough (or feedthrough) wire with a dome-shaped and hemispherical end in order to avoid over localizing the electric field (and current) sparking/arcing for an implantable device.
Regarding claim 2, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, see Schaffer [0045].
Regarding claim 4, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, see Rundle et al. figure 2 wherein the feedthru wire 60 extends from a bottom surface (surface immediately adjacent and abutting 55 in figure 2) of the PCB (PCB 85) and extends through a through-hole (“PCB through-hole 90” in figure 2) of the
PCB such that the dome-shaped end is exposed at an upper surface (side or surface of PCB 85 in figure 2 oppose the surface immediately adjacent and abutting 55 in figure 2) of the PCB.
Regarding claims 5-6, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention. Claims 5-6 recite recitations of 1) intended use, 2) functional limitation, and/or 3) language directed to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed and has been treated as such. Recall the connector ribbon is not a positively recited structural feature and therefore does not accomplish what Applicant may be intending.
Regarding claims 7-9, Rundle et al. disclose the claimed invention, see [0039] wherein some “traces” can be thought of as a contact, contact, and/or surface contact (trace 325, [0046] and figure 7A for example).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Schaffer (WO 2019/200046)as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Barry et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0245468).
Regarding claim 10, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer show the invention above but fail to explicitly recite a plurality of vias running through surface contact and the PCB.
A via is a Vertical Interconnect Access used in electronic circuitry having two or more layers and vias provide electrical connections between the desired electrical elements for different electrical layers.
Like Rundle et al., Barry et al. disclose an implantable medical device having a housing, a feedthrough assembly and a header and teach “disposing a conductive material in the plurality of vias so as to contact the connection element and provide a plurality of parallel electrical paths from the connection element to the plurality of ground layers,” see [0038] and figures 3 and 4.
Here the connection element of Barry et al. is interpreted as the surface contact.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al., as taught by Barry et al., to provide a surface contact (electrically conductive area) with a plurality of vias in order to provide electrical conductor over and between a multi-layer PCB or integrated circuit with the added benefit of providing the multi-layer structure with structural integrity.
Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Simmonds (U.S. Patent 5,110,034) in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 11, Rundle et al. disclose an implantable medical device (prior art “Implantable pulse generators 5,” see [0002] and figures 1A-1B) comprising:
a housing (“can or housing 15,” see [0002] and figure 1A-1B) including electronic devices (“PCB 85,” see [0008] and figure 2) within the housing;
a header (“header 10,” see [0002]-[0003] and figures 1A-1B) attached to the housing and including one or more bores (“Passages 50 (shown in phantom in FIG. 1A),” see [0005] and figure 1A); and
a feedthrough assembly (comprising the collection of “feedthru 55,” see [0004] and figures 1A and 2) between the housing and the header;
wherein the electronic devices include a PCB (“PCB 85,” see [0008] and figure 2) electronically connected to the header by a feedthrough wire (“feedthru wire 60,” see [0004]-[0009] and figures 1A and 2) running from the feedthrough assembly to the PCB,
wherein the feedthrough wire is attached to a contact on the PCB, see [0008] and figure 8.
Rundle et al. fail to explicitly disclose the feedthrough wire is attached to a contact on the PCB by a connector ribbon, the connector ribbon including Nb.
Connector ribbons, electrical ribbons are well known in the electrical arts for providing electrical connections between electrical components.
Like Rundle et al., Simmonds discloses an electrical device having a circuit board (“silicon substrate” with “circuitry 12,” see col. 2: 29-43 and figures 1 and 2) and teaches “Ultrasonically bonded to pad 14 is lead 23 comprised of niobium ribbon wire 17 having a coating 21 of palladium facing and contacting the coating of palladium on the pad.”
The examiner Official Notice of connecting the of electrically connecting the feedthrough wire to the connector ribbon since it is very well known in the electrical/electronic arts traces, ribbons wrap wires, etc. are alternate means of connecting external wires to electrical contacts/pads on circuit boards.
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate,” see MPEP 2144.03C.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al., as taught by Simmonds, to provide an Nb connector ribbon connected to the circuit board, and as further known via Official Notice, to electrically connect the delivery end of the feedthrough wire to the PCB (of circuit board) via a connector ribbon.
Regarding claims 12-13, Rundle et al. in view of Simmonds disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, see 1) Rundle et al. [0039]. Rundle et al. disclose the claimed invention, see [0039] wherein some “traces” can be thought of as a contact, contact, and/or surface contact (trace 325, [0046] and figure 7A for example).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Simmonds (U.S. Patent 5,110,034) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Barry et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0245468).
Regarding claim 14, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer show the invention above but fail to explicitly recite a plurality of vias running through surface contact and the PCB.
A via is a Vertical Interconnect Access used in electronic circuitry having two or more layers and vias provide electrical connections between the desired electrical elements for different electrical layers.
Like Rundle et al., Barry et al. disclose an implantable medical device having a housing, a feedthrough assembly and a header and teach “disposing a conductive material in the plurality of vias so as to contact the connection element and provide a plurality of parallel electrical paths from the connection element to the plurality of ground layers,” see [0038] and figures 3 and 4.
Here the connection element of Barry et al. is interpreted as the surface contact.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al. in view of Simmonds, as taught by Barry et al., to provide a surface contact (electrically conductive area) with a plurality of vias in order to provide electrical conductor over and between a multi-layer PCB or integrated circuit with the added benefit of providing the multi-layer structure with structural integrity.
Regarding claim 15, Rundle et al. in view of Simmonds in view of Barry et al. disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, the recited bonded to the surface contact by laser ribbon bonding is a product by process recitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Simmonds (U.S. Patent 5,110,034) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schaffer (WO 2019/200046).
Regarding claim 16, Rundle et al. in view of Simmonds show the invention above but fail to explicitly recite:
1) the feedthrough wire includes a dome-shaped end, and
2) that the dome-shaped end is adapted to be attached to a connector ribbon by laser wire bonding.
It is extremely well known in physics and the electrical arts that providing rounded edges and hemispherical ends of electrically conductive elements/wires helps to avoid electric (and magnetic) field over-localization, overconcentration, and sparking/arcing. Hemispherical electrical contacts are in fact the most symmetric and therefore provide for the smoothest electrical fields and electrical current patterns. Hemispherical ends also help reduce the chances of undesirable sparking/arcing.
As an example, and like Rundle et al., Schaffer discloses an implantable medical device and having an electrical lead 130 that is connected to a printed circuit board and teaches providing the end of lead with a “hemispherical or otherwise rounded tips 44 on the electrodes formed from wires 103 may facilitate implantation while also providing electric field distribution. In particular, rounded tip 44 may be “sharper” than blunt tip 43 (Fig. 4C), in that rounded tip 44 poses less of an impediment to initial insertion than blunt tip 43. At the same time, however, rounded tip 44 avoids electric field localization which may occur with a “sharp” or fully pointed tip, such as tips 40, 41 shown in Figs. 4A and 4B,” see [0070] and figure 4D).
With respect to the recitation of “the dome-shaped end is adapted to be attached to a connector ribbon by laser wire bonding,” this is a recitation of 1) intended use, 2) functional limitation, and/or 3) language directed to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed and has been treated as such.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al. in view of Simmonds, as taught by Schaffer, to provide the end of the feedthrough (or feedthrough) wire with a dome-shaped and hemispherical end in order to avoid over localizing the electric field (and current) sparking/arcing for an implantable device.
Claims 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Schaffer (WO 2019/200046) in view of Stancer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0106218) in view of case law.
Regarding 17, Rundle et al. disclose a method (see prior art “Implantable pulse generators 5,” see [0002] and figures 1A-1B) comprising:
extending a feedthrough wire (“feedthru wire 60,” see [0004]-[0009] and figures 1A and 2) through a through-hole of a PCB (“through-hole 90 in the PCB 85,” see [0009] and figure 2).
Rundle et al. fail to disclose:
1) the feedthrough wire including a dome-shaped end; and
2) bonding a connector ribbon to the dome-shaped end.
It is extremely well known in physics and the electrical arts that providing rounded edges and hemispherical ends of electrically conductive elements/wires helps to avoid electric (and magnetic) field over-localization and overconcentration. Hemispherical electrical contacts are in fact the most symmetric and therefore provide for the smoothest electrical fields and electrical current patterns. Hemispherical ends also help reduce the chances of undesirable sparking/arcing.
As an example, and like Rundle et al., Schaffer discloses an implantable medical device and having an electrical lead 130 that is connected to a printed circuit board and teaches providing the end of lead with a “hemispherical or otherwise rounded tips 44 on the electrodes formed from wires 103 may facilitate implantation while also providing electric field distribution. In particular, rounded tip 44 may be “sharper” than blunt tip 43 (Fig. 4C), in that rounded tip 44 poses less of an impediment to initial insertion than blunt tip 43. At the same time, however, rounded tip 44 avoids electric field localization which may occur with a “sharp” or fully pointed tip, such as tips 40, 41 shown in Figs. 4A and 4B,” see [0070] and figure 4D).
In the electronic and electrical arts it is extremely well known to provide circuits, circuit boards, printed circuit boards, and integrated circuits and their various components (e.g., the delivery ends of feedthrough wires) with electrical connections/communication via ribbon bonding.
As an example, and like Rundle et al., Stancer et al. discloses an implantable medical device very similar to the device of Rundle et al. and teach “ribbon bonding and/or conductive traces may electrically couple the electrical terminals to corresponding electrical terminals inside the housing of the IMD 16, e.g., on a circuit board that includes various electronic circuit components for generation, control and/or processing of electrical stimulation and/or sensing signals,” (see [0052], [0054], [0070], [0078]-[0085] and figures 1-4).
The examiner Official Notice of connecting the of electrically connecting the feedthrough wire dome-shape and the connector ribbon since it is very well known in the electrical/electronic arts that a connector ribbon can electrically couple various electrical components to electrical contacts/pads on circuit boards.
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate,” see MPEP 2144.03C.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al., as taught by Schaffer, to provide the end of the feedthrough (or feedthrough) wire with a dome-shaped and hemispherical end in order to avoid over localizing the electric field (and current) sparking/arcing for an implantable device, as further taught by Stancer et al., to use ribbon bonding on the circuit board, and as further taught by taking Official Notice, to provide a well known and workable connections of the of various electrical components to the printer circuit board (or circuit board) via a connector ribbon.
Regarding claim 18, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer in view of Stancer et al. in view of Official Notice disclose (or make obvious) the claimed invention, see Stancer et al. [0079].
Regarding claim 19, Rundle et al. disclose the claimed invention, see [0039] wherein some “traces” can be thought of as a contact (e.g., trace 325, [0046] and figure 7A for example).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0030296) in view of Schaffer (WO 2019/200046) in view of Stancer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0106218) in view of case law as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Barry et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0245468).
Regarding claim 20, Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer in view of Stancer et al. in view of Official Notice show the invention above but fail to explicitly recite a plurality of vias running through surface contact and the PCB.
A via is a Vertical Interconnect Access used in electronic circuitry having two or more layers and vias provide electrical connections between the desired electrical elements for different electrical layers.
Like Rundle et al., Barry et al. disclose an implantable medical device having a housing, a feedthrough assembly and a header and teach “disposing a conductive material in the plurality of vias so as to contact the connection element and provide a plurality of parallel electrical paths from the connection element to the plurality of ground layers,” see [0038] and figures 3 and 4.
Here the connection element of Barry et al. is interpreted as the surface contact.
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Rundle et al. in view of Schaffer in view of Stancer et al. in view of Official Notice, as taught by Barry et al., to provide a surface contact (electrically conductive area) with a plurality of vias in order to provide electrical conductor over and between a multi-layer PCB or integrated circuit with the added benefit of providing the multi-layer structure with structural integrity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON F ROANE whose telephone number is (571)272-4771. The examiner can normally be reached generally Mon-Fri 8am-9pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792