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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 14, 17-22, 24, 31, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole et al. (US 20220079475 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Cole.
Regarding Claim 1 and 18, Cole teaches: An apparatus comprising:
a printed circuit board comprising a plurality of layers (paragraph 0009);
a connector connected to the printed circuit board and configured to establish an electrical connection between the printed circuit board and a proximal portion of an analyte sensor having a distal portion configured to extend beneath a user's skin to monitor one or more analyte levels in a bodily fluid (paragraph 0010);
a battery connected to the printed circuit board and configured to power the printed circuit board (paragraph 0010);
a processor connected to the printed circuit board and configured to process data associated with the monitored one or more analyte levels (paragraph 0009-0012); and
a first antenna configured to transmit the data, the first antenna comprising a first radiating element including a conductive trace on a first layer of the printed circuit board and a second radiating element including a conductive trace on a second layer of the printed circuit board, wherein the first antenna is configured to transmit the processed data at a first set of frequencies (paragraph 0010-0011); and
a second antenna configured to transmit the data, the second antenna comprising at least one conductive trace on at least one layer of the printed circuit board, wherein the second antenna is configured to transmit the processed data at a second frequency (paragraph 0010-0011).
With respect to claim 18, Cole further teaches: an analyte sensor having a proximal portion and a distal portion, wherein the distal portion is configured to extend beneath a user's skin to monitor one or more analyte levels in a bodily fluid (paragraph 0009-0012).
Regarding Claim 2 and 19, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, and system of claim 18, wherein the first frequency is for transmission using Bluetooth low energy and the second frequency is for transmission using near field communications (paragraph 0300).
Regarding Claims 3 and 20, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, and system of claim 18, wherein the at least one conductive trace on at least one layer of the printed circuit board follows an outer circumference of the printed circuit board (figure 31B, element 3118), optionally to form a spiral, the spiral optionally having a plurality of loops (this limitation lacks patentable weight as it is written in the optional).
Regarding Claim 4 and 21, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, and system of claim 20, wherein the at least one conductive trace on at least one layer of the printed circuit board includes at least one conductive trace following, at least in part, an outer circumference of the printed circuit board to form at least three loops (figure 31B, element 3118).
Regarding Claim 5 and 22, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 3, and system of claim 20, wherein the at least one conductive trace on at least one layer of the printed circuit board forms at least three loops following an outer circumference of the printed circuit board (figure 31B, element 3118).
Regarding Claim 7, and 24, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, and system of claim 18, wherein the first radiating element and the second radiating element are both inverted-F radiating elements (paragraph 0298).
Regarding Claim 14, and Claim 31, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one conductive trace associated with the second antenna is configured on the second layer (paragraph 0300).
Regarding Claim 17 and Claim 34, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the printed circuit board further comprises a dielectric layer, wherein the dielectric layer is configured to not overlap with the conductive trace of the first radiating element on the first layer (paragraph 0053; 0096).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Coleman et al. (US 2019/0069788 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereafter Coleman.
Regarding Claim 6 and 23, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 and system of claim 18, but does not explicitly mention wherein the first radiating element and the second radiating element are both monopole radiating elements.
Coleman teaches that radiating elements can be monopole radiating elements (paragraph 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus and system to include wherein the first radiating element and the second radiating element are both monopole radiating elements as the substitution of one type of radiating element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 27, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1, and system of claim 18 but does not mention further comprising a ground plane configured on a third layer of the printed circuit board.
Coleman teaches the use of a ground plane on a layer of the PCB (figures 1A-1E; paragraph 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus and system to include further comprising a ground plane configured on a third layer of the printed circuit board to ground electrical components and provide safety to a user.
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 28, Cole in view of Coleman teaches: The apparatus of claim 10, and system of claim 18, wherein the third layer is between the first layer and the second layer (Coleman – figure 1A – 1E).
Regarding Claim 12 and Claim 29, Cole in view of Coleman teaches: The apparatus of claim 10, and system of claim 27, wherein the ground plane comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein the second portion is configured in a winding format, and wherein the second portion is configured to substantially overlap with the at least one conductive trace of the second antenna on the at least one layer (Coleman - paragraph 0059-0070; figures 1A-1E).
Regarding Claim 13 and Claim 30, Cole in view of Coleman teach: The apparatus of claim 12, and system of claim 29, wherein the first portion of the ground plane is configured to substantially not overlap with the at least one conductive trace of the second antenna on the at least one layer (Coleman - paragraph 0059-0070; figures 1A-1E).
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole.
Regarding Claim 8, and claim 25, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 7, and system of 24 but does not mention wherein the inverted-F radiating elements comprise at least one meandering portion. Cole however does mention that the radiating element can be any shape/form (paragraph 0298). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus and system to include wherein the inverted-F radiating elements comprise at least one meandering portion as it has been held that changes in shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 26, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 and system of claim 18, but does not explicitly mention wherein the first radiating element and the second radiating element are both planar inverted-F radiating elements. Cole however does mention that the radiating element can be any shape/form (paragraph 0298). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus and system to include wherein the first radiating element and the second radiating element are both planar inverted-F radiating elements as it has been held that changes in shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 15,16 and 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Salant et al. (WO 2023028164 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Salant.
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 32, Cole teaches: The apparatus of claim 1 and system of Claim 18, but does not mention wherein the conductive trace of the first radiating element on the first layer is configured in a first winding format.
Salant teaches wherein the conductive trace of the first radiating element on the first layer is configured in a first winding format (paragraph 0104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus and system to include wherein the conductive trace of the first radiating element on the first layer is configured in a first winding format as the substitution of one configuration of the trace for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 16 and Claim 33, Cole in view of Salant teach: The apparatus of claim 15, and system of Claim 32 wherein the conductive trace of the second radiating element on the second layer is configured in a second winding format, wherein the conductive trace of the first radiating element and the conductive trace of the second radiating element are configured in an offset manner with each other where outer curves of the first winding format are configured to substantially not overlap with outer curves of the second winding format (Salant – paragraph 0100-0105; Cole – paragraph 0298).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights