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 .
The amendment filed on April 21, 2026 has been received and considered. By this amendment, no claims are amended, claims 15-17 are cancelled, claims 21-23 are added, and claims 1-14 and 21-23 are now pending in the application, with claims 11-14 and 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah (U.S. 2018/0277970). Regarding claim 1, Shah discloses an implantable medical device 100 comprising: a housing 106 including electronic devices 132 within the housing (see Figure 4); a header 114 attached to the housing and including one or more bores (see annotated Figure 3 below); and a feedthrough assembly 102 between the housing and the header; wherein the electronic devices include a PCB 132 electronically connected to the header by a feedthrough wire 140a-c running from the feedthrough assembly to the PCB, wherein the feedthrough wire is connected to the PCB with a pigtail spring connector 120a-c (see Annotated Figure 3 below and Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shah discloses that the pigtail spring connector includes a curled shape (see annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 3, Shah discloses that the pigtail spring connector includes a coil shape (see annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 4, Shah discloses that the pigtail spring connector is attached to the PCB at a through-hole trace contact on a surface of the PCB (see annotated Figure 3 above).
Regarding claim 5, Shah discloses that the pigtail spring connector includes an axis extending perpendicularly to the PCB surface (see annotated Figure 3 above).
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.
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (U.S. 2018/0277970, cited above). Regarding claims 6 and 21, Shah discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including that the pigtail spring connector includes a coil shape having an axis extending perpendicular from a surface of the PCB, wherein the coil shape defines a series of diameters (see annotated Figure 3 above). However, the coil shape of the pigtail spring connector of Shah defines a series of diameters that go from smaller to larger as the coil shape extends farther from the PCB surface, instead of the claimed going from larger to smaller as the coil shape extends farther from the PCB surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Shah such that the series of diameters go from larger to smaller as the coil shape extends farther from the PCB surface, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 7, Shah discloses that the pigtail spring connector includes a gold-coated wire coil (“the compressible contacts 120 can be formed from titanium, platinum, platinum-iridium alloy, nitinol (e.g., nickel-titanium alloy), niobium, gold, or any other biocompatible metal or alloy”, paragraph [0030]).
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzano et al. (U.S. 2020/0203881) in view of Shah (U.S. 2018/0277970, cited above). Regarding claims 1 and 22, Marzano discloses an implantable medical device 12 comprising: a housing 32 including electronic devices 106 within the housing (see Figure 14); a header 118 attached to the housing and including one or more bores (see Figure 14); and a feedthrough assembly 22/24/26 between the housing and the header (see Figure 14 and “the AIMD hermetically sealed feedthrough 14 of the AIMD feedthrough connector assembly 10 of FIG. 1 and the filtered feedthrough assembly 22 of FIG. 3, comprises a an electrically conductive ferrule 26 comprising a ferrule opening extending to a ferrule body fluid side opposite a ferrule device side and an insulator 28 residing in the ferrule opening”, paragraph [0150]); wherein the electronic devices include a PCB 106 (“AIMD active electronic circuit boards 106”, paragraph [0124]) electronically connected to the header by a feedthrough wire 18 (“It is understood that the feedthrough wires mentioned are the terminal pins 18 taught herein”, paragraph [0132]) running from the feedthrough assembly to the PCB (see Figure 14), wherein the feedthrough wire is connected to the PCB with a spring connector 81/81’/81’’/81’’’/81’’’’ (see Figures 19 and 19A-D and “a compliant termination structure 81 having a spring-like elastically resilient press-in zone that can be inserted or ‘press fit’ into a conductive plated or terminated circuit board via hole 109 having circuit traces (not shown) routed to them”, paragraph [0246]). However, Marzano fails to disclose that the spring connector is a pigtail spring connector including a coil shape with a central axis extending perpendicularly from a surface of the PCB, wherein the feedthrough wire extends through the central axis of the pigtail spring connector so as to contact an inner surface of the coil shape to connect the feedthrough wire to the PCB. Shah teaches an implantable medical device 100 comprising: a housing 106 including electronic devices 132 within the housing (see Figure 4); a header 114 attached to the housing and including one or more bores (see annotated Figure 3 below); and a feedthrough assembly 102 between the housing and the header; wherein the electronic devices include a PCB 132 electronically connected to the header by a feedthrough wire 140a-c running from the feedthrough assembly to the PCB, wherein the feedthrough wire is connected to the PCB with a pigtail spring connector 120a-c, wherein the feedthrough wire extends through the central axis of the pigtail spring connector so as to contact an inner surface of the coil shape to connect the feedthrough wire to the PCB (see Annotated Figure 3 above and Figure 4). Shah further teaches that the pigtail spring connector 120a-c is an equivalent structure to a leaf spring (“compressible contact 500 is an example of the compressible contact 120 described herein. The compressible contact 500 is an example of a leaf spring contact”, paragraph [0057]) and a cantilever spring contact (“The compressible contact 600 is an example of the compressible contact 120 and the compressible contact 500 described herein. The compressible contact 600 is an example of a cantilever spring”, paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Marzano to substitute the spring contact 81/81’/81’’/81’’’/81’’’’ with a pigtail spring connector, as taught by Shah, to yield the predictable result of electrical contact between the feedthrough pin and the PCB, as it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results requires routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Marzano discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the pigtail spring connector includes a curled shape. Shah teaches a pigtail spring connector 120a-c that includes a curled shape (see annotated Figure 3 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spring contact of Marzano with a pigtail spring connector that includes a curled shape, as taught by Shah, as it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results requires routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Marzano discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to disclose that the pigtail spring connector includes a coil shape. Shah teaches a pigtail spring connector 120a-c that includes a coil shape (see annotated Figure 3 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spring contact of Marzano with a pigtail spring connector that includes a coil shape, as taught by Shah, as it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results requires routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Marzano discloses that the spring connector is attached to the PCB at a through-hole trace contact 109 on a surface of the PCB (see Figure 19).
Regarding claim 5, Marzano discloses that the spring connector includes an axis extending perpendicularly to the PCB surface (see annotated Figure 19 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
664
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Marzano discloses that the feedthrough wire 18’ extends through a central axis of the spring connector (see annotated Figure 19 above). However, Marzano fails to disclose a coil shape of the pigtail spring connector. Shah teaches a pigtail spring connector 120a-c that includes a coil shape (see annotated Figure 3 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the spring contact of Marzano with a pigtail spring connector that includes a coil shape, as taught by Shah, as it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results requires routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Such a configuration, where the spring connector of Marzano is replaced by a coil pigtail spring connector would result in the feedthrough wire contacting an inner surface of a coil shape of the pigtail spring connector
Regarding claim 9, Marzano discloses that the feedthrough wire extends through a through-hole 109 in the PCB and goes up though the spring connector and is tack welded to the spring connector (“The compliant termination structure 81′ may be monolithically formed when terminal pins 18, 18′ are formed (not shown), or alternatively may be separately formed and joined to terminal pins 18, 18′ by a weld or a braze (the weld or braze is labelled 144 in FIG. 19A).”, paragraph [0248]).
Regarding claim 10, Marzano fails to disclose that the pigtail spring connector includes a gold-coated wire coil. Shah teaches that the pigtail spring connector includes a gold-coated wire coil (“the compressible contacts 120 can be formed from titanium, platinum, platinum-iridium alloy, nitinol (e.g., nickel-titanium alloy), niobium, gold, or any other biocompatible metal or alloy”, paragraph [0030]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Marzano to include the pigtail spring connector including a gold-coated wire coil, as taught by Shah, as it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results requires routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the previous rejections based on Shah, the Applicant argues that Shah fails to disclose a pigtail spring connector because Shah describes compressible contacts, such as 120, as “an example of a leaf spring contact” or “an example of a cantilever spring”. It is respectfully submitted that while Shah does disclose a leaf spring or cantilever spring as compressible contacts, those are alternatives to the contact that is clearly shown in Figure 3 to be a pigtail spring connector. Applicant further argues that the Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 “incorrectly identifies a feedthrough wire extending through the central axis of the compressible contact” stating that there is no evidence that this exists. It is respectfully submitted that Figure 3 was annotated to add a dotted line for the central axis. It is clear that the feedthrough wire identified as 140c is the feedthrough wire extending through the annotated central axis of the compressible contact. The Applicant further argues that nowhere does Shah disclose a feedthrough wire connected to the PCB with a pigtail spring connector, saying that Applicant’s claims require that the feedthrough wire is connected to the PCB with the pigtail spring connector and “the spring in Shah performs no such action, and no such wire exists”. It is respectfully submitted that feedthrough wires 140a-c clearly exist because they are shown in Figure 3. Furthermore, Shah states at paragraph [0037]: “In the connected state illustrated in FIG. 1, the compressible contacts 120 are in physical contact with the bond pads 124 and held in a manner that compresses the compressible contacts 120. In this manner, multiple independent electrical connections can be formed between the electronics package 104 and the neural interface 102.” This disclosure supports the spring in Shah performing the action of connecting feedthrough wire 140a-c to the PCB, as the “electronics package 104 and the neural interface 102” of Shah are the claimed PCB and it is clearly stated that compressible contacts 120 form electrical connections to these elements. As such, Shah is considered to disclose the invention as claimed.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Shah based on the “mere reversal” rationale, the Applicant argues that reversal would destroy the functionality of the claimed pigtail spring connector. However, the modification is not to reverse the pigtail spring connector of the claimed invention, but rather to reverse the pigtail spring connector of Shah. The reversal of the pigtail spring connector of Shah, rather than resulting in progressively opening the pigtail spring connector around the wire in the direction away from the PCB, it would result in holding the feedthrough wire in place relative to the PCB. Applicant fails to show how the modification of Shah would destroy the functionality of the pigtail spring connector. For at least the reasons given above, the rejection stands.
Regarding the rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Marzano in view of Shah, the Applicant argues that Shah does not disclose a pigtail spring connector. As discussed above, this is not found persuasive because Shah clearly shows a pigtail spring connector in Figure 3. Further, Applicant argues that Marzano and Applicant use fundamentally different connection architectures. Applicant describes Marzano’s connection as a press-fit connector and Applicant’s invention as a coiled pigtail spring connector. However, the press-fit connector of Marzano is described as leaf springs. Shah clearly teaches the interchangeability of pigtail spring connectors for leaf springs and, thus, the rejection is considered to stand.
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 TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 pm.
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 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.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights