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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 38-43 and 51-54 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
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 and 44-50 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 47 and 48 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.
The remainder of the claims are also rejected in that they depend from previously rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 44-46 and 49-50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christman et al. US 7,613,522.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Christman discloses an implantable antenna assembly 260 (figure 2B) comprising; a feed location (in figure 2 where the antenna exits the IMD and enters the header 252); a dielectric portion 252 (“header”, figure 2B, column 4, lines 50-55 and column 5 lines 39-41); and a conductive structure 260 (figure 2B) located within the dielectric portion, the conductive structure coupled to the feed location, the conductive structure comprising; a first portion extending along a first plant (this extends along the XY plane), a second portion extending along a second plane (XZ plane), the XY plane is orthogonal to the XZ plane; wherein the first portion projects parallel to the X axis and perpendicular to the X axis (where it exits the IMD); wherein the first portion comprises about 1/3 of a total length and the second portion comprises about 2/3 of the total length.
Regarding claims 44-45: Christman discloses that the first portion extends along the first plane (XY plane) at an angle (figure 2B) and the second portion extends along a second plane (XZ plane) at an angle.
Regarding claim 46: Christman discloses that the conductive structure can include over-molding or backfill (column 4, lines 65-67), as is known in the art over-molding includes flowing material to encase components. i
Regarding claim 49: Christman discloses the distal end of the conductive structure is curved (figure 2B).
Regarding claim 50: Christman discloses that the conductive structure can be a ribbon (column 5, line 54).
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.
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 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christman et al. US 7,613,522 in view of Nghiem et al. US 2010/0100157.
Regarding claim 47: Christman discloses the claimed invention however, Christman does not discloses that the total length of the first and second portion is about a quarter of an effective wavelength, the effective wavelength established by contributions from a relative dielectric constant of the dielectric portion and a relative dielectric constant of a tissue implant medium (the language in italic is considered to be an inherent property). Nghiem however teaches of an antenna with an effective wavelength which is less than one quarter of the length (paragraph 0020). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Christman to include an effective wavelength which is less than one quarter of the length, as taught by Nghiem, in order to provide a substantially conjugate match to an output impedance of an implantable telemetry circuit coupled to the implantable antenna (abstract, Nghiem).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christman et al. US 7,613,522.
Regarding claim 48: Christman discloses that the conductive structure 260 (figure 2B) includes a first conductive structure which includes the first and second portions (figure 2B), the antenna assembly includes a second conductive structure 232 (figure 2B). However, the first and second conductive structures are not “about “ the same, figure 2A however shows the structures as being the same. Christman discloses that both 2A and 2B are dipole configurations (column 4, line 34). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Christman figure 2B according to Christman figure 2A to include antenna structures that are about the same, as taught by Christman figure 2A, in order to include dipole antenna configurations.
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
i https://www.hubs.com/knowledge-base/what-is-overmolding/