DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding claim 17, the amendment includes elements of previous claim 7 without the limitations from previous parent claim 6. As noted below, Bobgan shows the claimed elements from previous claim 7 without parent claim 6, and thus claims 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected. Dependent claim 21 would be allowable.
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.
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) 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobgan (US 2017/0050032) in view of Iyer (US 2021/0187291) and English (US 2021/0251488).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Bobgan discloses substantially the same invention as claimed (Figure 2 shown above for example), including a medical device (abstract) comprising a first housing section including a first cavity (Figure 2: 202); a second housing section coupled to the first housing section and including a second cavity (Figure 2: 204); a first circuit board section positioned within the first cavity (Figures 3A-5B; Paragraph 72; scaffold supports circuit components); a second circuit board section positioned within the second cavity (Paragraph 75); and an antenna coupled to the first circuit board section and positioned within the medical device to transmit signals (Paragraph 74).
Further regarding claim 17, Bobgan discloses the first housing encloses the antenna, but does not disclose the first housing material. However, Iyer teaches selecting a first housing material to be ceramic, in order to facilitate wireless communication (Paragraph 24; Figures 2A-B: 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bobgan as taught by Iyer to include ceramic as recited, in order to facilitate wireless communication.
Further regarding claim 17, Bobgan does not explicitly disclose hermeticity. However, English teaches hermeticity is typically desired, and includes using an electrode as part of the hermetic seal (Paragraph 79), in order to protect the device from the body environment and vice versa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bobgan and Iyer as taught by English to include hermeticity as recited, in order to protect the device from the body environment and vice versa.
Further regarding claim 17, Bobgan discloses traces of the first circuit board section and the second circuit board section are configured to transmit electrical signals from the first housing section to the second housing section (Paragraphs 72, 75).
Regarding claim 18, Bobgan discloses a third housing section coupling between the first and second housing sections (e.g. Figures 4A-B: 402). Bobgan does not disclose brazing or welding as recited. However, Iyers teaches the intercoupling third housing section is brazed and welded to first and second housing sections as recited (Paragraph 33), in order to provide a more effective hermetic seal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Bobgan as taught by Iyers to include brazing and welding as recited, in order to provide a more effective hermetic seal.
Regarding claim 20, Bobgan discloses inserting a conductive pin through an aperture as recited (Figures 3A-B, 9-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 22-24 allowed.
Claim 21 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim (US 2019/0232066) shows a monolithic ceramic header.
Bobgan (US 2022/0111218) shows an IMD with a ceramic header and no feedthru.
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 Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights