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 .
IDS
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-32 have been examined, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a surface (see claims 1, 4, 6, 15, 17, and 24), the carrier aligned with the first anatomical region and the second region of the carrier is aligned with a second anatomical region (claim 1), internal area (claim 8), transitional region (claim 10), overlap along a thickness (claim 10), the thickness (claim 12), a first configuration (claim 15), a second configuration (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 recites “the first region of the antenna” and “the second region of the antenna”, both recitations lack proper antecedent basis and should read “a first region” and “a second region”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 24 each recite a carrier to be positioned on “a surface”. It is unclear what this surface is intended to be or where this surface is located, it could be any surface. The language is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 3-4: claim 3 recites “wherein the magnetic field has a component that is configured to extend through an antenna of the implant in a direction substantially perpendicular to a radial dimension of the antenna of the implant across a range of nod angles, axial head angles, head positions and/or head rotations.” This claim language is specifically directed towards the magnetic field and not the actual structure of the antenna, which makes the structure difficult to determine. It is further unclear how the radial dimension can occur across a range of nod angles, axial head angles, head positions and/or head rotations. Therefore claims 3-4 are indefinite and will not be rejected with prior art due to the unclear nature of the structure associated with the claimed function. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 and it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions. (In re Steele 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)).
Claims 3-4, 6, 11, 13, 17, 22, 28 and 31 recite the term “substantially” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the word “substantially” cannot be determined.
Claims 11, 22, 29 and 31 recite the term “about” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the word “about” cannot be determined.
Claim 15 recites “in a first configuration” and “in a second configuration”. This language is unclear, it is unclear if the device changes configurations.
The remainder of the claims are also rejected in that they depend from previously rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 13-20 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2019/0229771 in view of White, II et al. US 2018/0287426.
Regarding claim 1: Lee discloses a device 500 (“electronic device”, figure 5) which includes a carrier 510-2 (“second cover” figure 5) configured to be positioned on a surface (the second cover can be plastic, paragraph 0111 which is customarily capable of being placed on a surface), the carrier 510-2 (“second cover” figure 5) is a single surface which is considered to have two regions which do not overlap; and an antenna 610 (figure 7) carried by the carrier (the conductive pattern 570 in figure 5 is disclosed an antenna in paragraph 0106 which can be coupled to the second housing, paragraph 0109), the antenna is used to transmit power (paragraph 0106) which would inherently create a magnetic field (magnetic field generation is mentioned in paragraphs 0121, 0134). In the antenna design by Lee, the first antenna 710 (figure 7) has fewer turns than does the second antenna 720 (figure 7), therefore the magnetic field density produced by second antenna 720 is inherently denser than the magnetic field produced by 710 (figure 7). Further, Lee discloses that the antenna can use inductive coupling (paragraph 0148) and can be used with implants (paragraph 0030). In this design by Lee, the electronic device 500 (figure 5) would provide power through inductive coupling to an implanted device. Regarding the claim language “wherein the magnetic field is configured to power the implant when the carrier is positioned on the surface and proximate the patient such that the first region of the carrier is aligned with the first anatomical region and the second region of the carrier is aligned with a second anatomical region of the patient, the second anatomical region having a greater soft tissue to bone ratio than the first anatomical region”. This language is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. As is known the magnetic field is configured based on the needs of the device to be charged and is regulated by the processor or a processor of some kind. Lee discusses medical devices which are implanted (“bio implantation”, paragraph 0031). If the device for charging a bio implant (such as the device disclosed buy Lee) is oriented by the user on the skin to charge an implant it can be orientated in a variety of manners which would necessarily include first and second anatomical regions which have different densities. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use because it includes a carrier and the antenna structure which is for inductive charging and a user can orientate the device in any manner.
However, Lee is silent as to what the specific absorption rate (SAR) for the device is and that the SAR must not exceed a predetermined threshold. White, II however teaches of wireless power transfer from an externally worn device 600 (figure 6) to an implanted device (paragraph 0076) using wireless charging. White, II further teaches that the SAR must stay below a threshold (paragraph 0071). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee to include limiting the SAR to stay below a threshold, as taught by White II, in order to comply with the SAR limit (White, II paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 2: Lee discloses antenna 720 (figure 7) and antenna 710 (figure 7) which are both components of antenna 610 (figure 7). Antenna 720 has more windings which would result in antenna 720 producing a greater magnetic flux.
Regarding claim 5: Lee discloses medical devices which are implanted (“bio implantation”, paragraph 0031). If the device for charging a bio implant (such as the device disclosed buy Lee) is oriented by the user on the skin to charge an implant it can be orientated in a variety of manners which would necessarily include first and second anatomical regions which have different densities. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use because it includes a carrier and the antenna structure which is for inductive charging and a user can orientate the device in any manner.
Regarding claim 6: Lee discloses medical devices which are implanted (“bio implantation”, paragraph 0031). If the device for charging a bio implant (such as the device disclosed buy Lee) is oriented by the user on the skin to charge an implant it can be orientated in a variety of manners which would necessarily include first and second anatomical regions which have different densities. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use because it includes a carrier and the antenna structure which is for inductive charging and a user can orientate the device in any manner which would include the positioning the device so that the second anatomical region is closer to the carrier than the first anatomical region depending on the implant location of implanted component, this could be substantially perpendicular.
Regarding claims 7-8: Lee discloses a first region of antenna 710 or 712 comprises a first length of conductive material forming a first loop (outermost loop of each antenna) and a second length forming a second single loop (second loop from the outermost loop of each antenna, figure 7), the second loop is fully within the first loop in each antenna structure.
Regarding claim 9: Lee discloses that the loops are connected, as is seen in figure 7.
Regarding claim 13: Lee discloses that the first and second portions of the carrier are complainer (figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 14: Lee/White II discloses the claimed invention. White II further disclose that the FCC has established that the SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg is averaged over 1g of tissue for 10-30 minutes (paragraph 0059). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the FCC established SAR limits, as taught by White II, in order to comply with federal standards.
Regarding claim 15: Lee discloses a carrier 510-2 (“second cover” figure 5) configured to be positioned on a surface (the second cover can be plastic, paragraph 0111 which is customarily capable of being placed on a surface) with the carrier 510-2 (figure 5) including non-overlapping first and second regions (the device in figure 5 can be divided in any manner to create two regions; and an antenna 610 (figure 7) carried by the carrier (the conductive pattern 570 in figure 5 is disclosed an antenna in paragraph 0106 which can be coupled to the second housing, paragraph 0109), comprising conductive material (paragraphs 0083-86, 0123 and 0127), the antenna includes a fist length with three loops (the length of the windings 723 in figure 7 is a first length) and a second length with 7 loops (the length of windings 713 in figure 7), there are multiple loops in each region, wherein the first and second configurations include different amounts of conductive material (based on the amount of loops provided these two antenna components have different amounts of conductive material), and wherein the antenna 610 (figure 7) is configured to produce a magnetic field (paragraphs 0118, 0134) to power an implant (Lee discloses that the antenna can use inductive coupling (paragraph 0148) and can be used with implants (paragraph 0030). In this design by Lee, the electronic device 500 (figure 5) would provide power through inductive coupling to an implanted device). Regarding the claim language “to produce a magnetic field configured to power the implant when the carrier is positioned on the surface and proximate the patient such that the first region of the carrier is aligned with the first anatomical region and the second region of the carrier is aligned with a second anatomical region of the patient, and wherein, the magnetic field is powering the implant.” This language is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. As is known the magnetic field is configured based on the needs of the device to be charged and is regulated by the processor or a processor of some kind. Lee discusses medical devices which are implanted (“bio implantation”, paragraph 0031). If the device for charging a bio implant (such as the device disclosed buy Lee) is oriented by the user on the skin to charge an implant it can be orientated in a variety of manners which would necessarily include first and second anatomical regions which have different densities. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use because it includes a carrier and the antenna structure which is for inductive charging and a user can orientate the device in any manner.
However, Lee is silent as to what the specific absorption rate (SAR) for the device is and that the SAR must not exceed a predetermined threshold. White, II however teaches of wireless power transfer from an externally worn device 600 (figure 6) to an implanted device (paragraph 0076) using wireless charging. White, II further teaches that the SAR must stay below a threshold (paragraph 0071). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee to include limiting the SAR to stay below a threshold, as taught by White II, in order to comply with the SAR limit (White, II paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 16-17: Lee discloses medical devices which are implanted (“bio implantation”, paragraph 0031). If the device for charging a bio implant (such as the device disclosed buy Lee) is oriented by the user on the skin to charge an implant it can be orientated in a variety of manners which would necessarily include first and second anatomical regions which have different densities. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use because it includes a carrier and the antenna structure which is for inductive charging and a user can orientate the device in any manner which would include the positioning the device so that the second anatomical region is closer to the carrier than the first anatomical region depending on the implant location of implanted component, this could be substantially perpendicular.
Regarding claim 18: Lee discloses a first region 710 and a second region 720 (figure 7) the density of the wire material to create windings 723/713 is inherently different.
Regarding claim 19: Lee discloses that the first antenna and second antenna 710/720 have different numbers of loops.
Regarding claim 20: Lee discloses two regions which can be broken into where antenna 710 lies and where antenna 720 lies (figure 7), the two regions would inherently exhibit different magnetic fluxes.
Regarding claims 24 and 26: Lee discloses a carrier 510-2 (“second cover” figure 5) configured to be positioned on a surface (the second cover can be plastic, paragraph 0111 which is customarily capable of being placed on a surface) with the carrier 510-2 (figure 5) including first and second sides, the first side opposite the second side and an antenna 570/610 (figures 5/7) carried by the carrier 510-2 (figure 5) comprising conductive material 713/723 (figure 7) forming at least two first loops at the first region and a second loop at the second region of the carrier (figure 7). Regarding the claim language “to produce a magnetic field configured to power the implant when the carrier is positioned on the surface and proximate the patient such that the first region of the carrier is aligned with the first anatomical region and the second region of the carrier is aligned with a second anatomical region of the patient, and wherein, the magnetic field is powering the implant.” This language is considered to be intended use and/or functional language. As is known the magnetic field is configured based on the needs of the device to be charged and is regulated by the processor or a processor of some kind. Lee discusses medical devices which are implanted (“bio implantation”, paragraph 0031). If the device for charging a bio implant (such as the device disclosed buy Lee) is oriented by the user on the skin to charge an implant it can be orientated in a variety of manners which would necessarily include first and second anatomical regions which have different densities. Applicant is reminded that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use because it includes a carrier and the antenna structure which is for inductive charging and a user can orientate the device in any manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
870
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claim language wherein current flows through the first region of the carrier in a first direction and current flows through the second region of the carrier in a second direction opposite direction such that the flow of current through the antenna reverses at the midline. As is known in the art magnetic fields emirate from the coils in a circular pattern which would inherently lead to currents running in opposing directions. This language is considered to be functional in nature, it is suggested that the language is amended to include structural features of the antenna as opposed to the function which is to be attained.
However, Lee is silent as to what the specific absorption rate (SAR) for the device is and that the SAR must not exceed a predetermined threshold. White, II however teaches of wireless power transfer from an externally worn device 600 (figure 6) to an implanted device (paragraph 0076) using wireless charging. White, II further teaches that the SAR must stay below a threshold (paragraph 0071). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee to include limiting the SAR to stay below a threshold, as taught by White II, in order to comply with the SAR limit (White, II paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 25: Lee discloses that the loops of the separate antennas 710/720 (figure 7) are continuous and considered to be connected in series.
Regarding claims 27-28: Lee discloses that each antenna 710/720 (figure 7) has multiple loops 713/723 (figure 7) with the outermost loop considered to be the major loop and the minor loops contained within the major loop, the loops are spaced apart around every bend which would include a width direction.
Regarding claim 29: Lee discloses using a 6.78 MHz resonance frequency (paragraph 0151).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 21-23 and 30-32 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 10, 21 and 30 each recite that a portion of the first segment of the antenna and at least a portion of the segment of the antenna overlap along a thickness dimension of the antenna. This would operably place components of the antenna at different thickness of the device and on different sides of the device, creating a situation where the antenna can be closer to or further away from the surface of the tissue of the patient with the implant. This language combined with the language found in the independent claims is considered to be novel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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 H 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights