Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Priority. None of claims 2-6, 8-12, 16-15, 17-18 are supported by the disclosures of the prior-filed applications as evidenced by at least the 112 first new matter rejections below. Because it is unclear what “circuit” is being referenced and no such “circuit” used to perform the claimed operations can be found in any the prior-filed applications, none of pending claims are presently supported by any of the prior filed applications.
The replacement drawings correct the previous made objection however amendments to the claims facilitated new objection to the drawings presented below.
Amendments to the claims present new 112 issues presented below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous made 103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive in light of present 112 issues with the claims and resulting claim interpretations.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 12/485,641 and 12/485,654, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Therefore the effective filing date of the present application is that of the actual filing date of the present application which is 3/20/2024.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
(Claim 2) Identification of the claimed “circuit” for detecting feedback configured to determine relative position of the one or more transmitting antenna and the one or more receiving antenna using the feedback.
(Claim 12) Identification of the claimed “circuit” used for both of “detecting feedback from the implanted device” and configured to constantly monitor the received power signal to increase of adjust power transfer throughout the period of usage of the implantable device.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
(Claim 2) The “circuit” for detecting feedback configured to determine relative position of the one or more transmitting antenna and the one or more receiving antenna using the feedback.
(Claim 12) The “circuit” used for both of “detecting feedback from the implanted device” and configured to constantly monitor the received power signal to increase of adjust power transfer throughout the period of usage of the implantable device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all circuit designs “configured to determine a relative position of the one more transmitting antenna and the one or more receiving antenna using the feedback”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to envision and provide the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Applicant is entitled to the circuit design taught and disclosed in the disclosure and not all present and future circuit design for performing the claimed function as presently claimed.
Furthermore, the discloser fails to teach using “feedback” to perform “relative position”. Furthermore nowhere in the specification is “relative position” mentioned as being detected. In fact what is detected is that of “precise position” of the implant and not the position of the transmit and receive antenna:
[0199] As shown, there exists a location sensor 140, (not a “circuit” as claimed) which receives control signals from the central control system 120, and which essentially provides signals (not “feedback” as claimed) that can be used to detect the specific and precise position (not relative as claimed) of the locomotive implant 200 (not the transmit and receive antennas as claimed) within the body 120. The location sensor can be an imaging apparatus that detects the presence of the locomotive implant based upon some characteristic of the locomotive implant 200, such as the mutual inductance of the link, electromagnetic absorption, temperature difference, or scattered field from the implant. Alternatively, the location sensor 140 can be a separate imaging system such as ultrasound or MRI, or it can be based on data transmitted from the device. In each of these embodiments, precise position information is provided to the central control system 120.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all circuit designs “configured to determine a relative position of the one more transmitting antenna and the one or more receiving antenna using the feedback”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to envision and provide the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Applicant is entitled to the circuit design taught and disclosed in the disclosure and not all present and future circuit design for performing the claimed function as presently claimed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all circuit designs “for detecting feedback” and “constantly monitor the received power signal to increase of adjust power transfer throughout the period of usage of an implantable device”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to envision and provide the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Applicant is entitled to the circuit design taught and disclosed in the disclosure and not all present and future circuit design for performing the claimed function as presently claimed.
Claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-18 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.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12
Applicant is directed to explicitly claim the generically recited “circuit” of claims 2 and 12 in order to alleviate the 112 issues below. If the claim term “circuit” is continued to be used, then the Figures must explicitly label and show said claimed “circuit” to fully disclose and make clear what circuit is being referenced as such clarity is presently lacking causing issues with the Figures and 112 clarity issues.
Regarding Claim 2
It is unclear which “circuit” disclosed in the specification, if any, are being referenced as performing the claimed function of “detecting feedback… determine relative position…”. Consistent claim terms must be used between the disclosure and claims to enable proper support.
Because the circuit to perform the claimed function there is no way to ascertain the structure of the claimed “configuration” of the unknown circuit configuration “to constantly monitor the received power signal to increase or adjust power transfer throughout the period of usage of the implantable device”.
Regarding Claim 12
There is lack of antecedent basis for the claim terms “the received power signal” and “the period of usage”.
It is unclear which “circuit” disclosed in the specification, if any, are being referenced as performing the claimed function of “detecting feedback” and “constantly monitor the received power signal to increase or adjust power transfer throughout the period of usage of the implantable device…”. Consistent claim terms must be used between the disclosure and claims to enable proper support.
Because the circuit to perform the claimed function there is no way to ascertain the structure of the claimed “configuration” of the unknown circuit configuration “to constantly monitor the received power signal to increase or adjust power transfer throughout the period of usage of the implantable device”.
The claims will be examined as best understood.
Regarding Claim 10
The claim limitation “wherein the adaptive match receive circuit is configured to match
the tunable impedance based on the environment of unknown transmission characteristics to
thereby increase a gain of the received power signal” is both unintelligible in function and
improperly attempts to narratively define the invention narratively instead of adding structure to
the apparatus. Nor is it clear what structure is intended to be added.
Regarding Claim 11
The claim limitation “wherein the wireless power transmitter is configured to receive data
transferred from the implantable device by varying impedance of the one or more receiving
antennae” improperly attempts to narratively define the invention narratively instead of adding
structure to the apparatus. Nor is it clear what structure is intended to be added.
Regarding Claims 14, 15, and 17
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform to current U.S. practice, because the language of the claim does not provide the necessary clarity and precision required thereby making the scope of the invention sought to be patented undeterminable from the language of the claim with any reasonable degree of certainty. The claim generally recites what the apparatus does, without requisite structure to perform said claimed operation.
Particularly, the following limitations are unclear:
14. The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the wireless power receiver (a known device in the art the receives a signal) is configured to provide provides an indication of a gain of the received power signal. (missing circuitry to perform beyond that of receiving making the claim a narrative attempt to define the invention)
15. The apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the circuit for detecting feedback (noting said circuit is not defined nor clearly disclosed) is configured to adjust the gain by applying one or more of: (a) impedance matching between the wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver, (b) beam forming by repositioning the wireless power receiver, or (c) tuning the power signal frequency. (Noting lack of any structure provided with said narrative limitations to the undefined “circuit”).
17. The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the circuit for detecting feedback is configured to control of the transmitted power signal includes maximizing a gain of the received power signal. (Noting lack of any structure provided with said narrative limitations to the undefined “circuit”).
The narrative language of the claims further fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim as required by MPEP 2173.05(g), and is thus indefinite. The above functional language purports to define the invention by reciting a function or result achieved by the invention, thereby making the boundaries of the claim scope ambiguous and unclear. The Examiner acknowledges that an apparatus may be claimed via positively recited structure and/or through use of functional language however said function must be tied to identifiable structure/component in order for said otherwise narrative language to functionally limit said structure (see MPEP 2114), else the claim simply becomes a narrative recitation of the desired function/result achieved of the device, as with the present case. As such, it is noted per MPEP 2114 that an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function noting that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (see MPEP 2114).
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s) 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 above, it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6, and 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2014/0194058 in view of Schultz et al. US 2013/0225077 and Bae US 9,601,946.
Lee teaches:
2. An apparatus for wireless power and data transfer to an implantable device operating in a biological environment, the apparatus comprising:
a wireless power transmitter (210, FIG2) operating at a power signal frequency (read on by said RF frequency, see Abstract) and having one or more transmitting antennae (218) configured to transmit a power signal modulated with data over a carrier signal (see Specification [0021]); and
a wireless power receiver (220) having one or more receiving antennae (221) configured to receive the transmitted power signal as a received power signal [0033], wherein the wireless power receiver is integrated into the implantable device [0035], wherein the implantable device further comprises: a demodulator (“Data Communication Circuit” 229, [0035]) that decodes data modulated on the power signal using Amplitude Modulation [0033]).
Lee fails to teach wherein said Amplitude Modulation (AM) demodulation is performed without synchronizing to the carrier signal.
Schultz teaches an apparatus for wireless power and data transfer which uses amplitude modulation performed without synchronizing to the carrier signal [0121].
It would have been obvious to include the asynchronous amplitude modulation as taught by Schultz into the Amplitude Modulation performed by Lee with the motivation of simplicity and low cost in both transmitter and receiver circuits, longer distance transmission and wider coverage, easy demodulation, lower carrier frequency and low bandwidth.
Lee fails to teach:
a circuit for detecting feedback from the implantable device.
Bae teaches a circuit for detecting feedback from a wireless receiver device (see 220, 230, FIG1).
It would have been obvious to include the circuitry and functionality of transmitter side feedback detection and receiver side data transmission as taught by Bae into the system of Lee with the desired function of allowing the implanted device of Lee to communication with the transmitter and to control power control such as to allow for stopping charging when the implanted battery is fully charged, see Step S107, FIG4 and corresponding Specification of Bae.
Lee further teaches:
3. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the carrier signal is an RF carrier signal [0033].
4. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the implantable device further comprises a rectifier (222b), a regulator (222c), and a digital controller (225), and a charging device (223b) that accumulates energy over time.
Lee teaches:
5. The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the power signal frequency has a wavelength usable in the biological environment (as taught by the use of the receiver used as an implant in the biological environment of a body [0003].
Lee fails to teach the spacing used between the transmitter and receiver used as comprising: the wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver are spaced apart by a distance in the range between wavelength/100 and wavelength*100.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find and provide the desired distance between the transmitter and receiver including the distance defined by a distance in the range between wavelength/100 and wavelength*100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Lee further teaches:
6. The apparatus according to claim 2 further comprising: a medical device attached to the implantable device (ie cochlear implant, deep brain stimulator [0003]; and a data link (214, FIG2) that remotely programs the medical device and retrieves information from the medical device. 17/559,886
Lee fails to teach:
8. The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the data link supports two-way encryption.
Official Notice is taken that both the concept and advantages of providing for support for two-way encryption in data links are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to have included the support for two way encryption in Lee as these encryption support are known to provide enhanced security and data integrity.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2014/0194058 in view of Schultz et al. US 2013/0225077 and Choi et al. US 2012/0049648.
Lee fails to teach:
9. The apparatus according to claim 2 further comprising: an adaptive match transmit circuit with a tunable impedance, wherein the adaptive match transmit circuit is in communication with the wireless power transmitter; and an adaptive match receive circuit in communication with the wireless power receiver, wherein the adaptive match receive circuit receives the received power signal, and is configured to match the tunable impedance.
Choi teaches wherein an adaptive match transmit circuit is in communication with the wireless power transmitter; and an adaptive match receive circuit in communication with the wireless power receiver, wherein the adaptive match receive circuit receives the received power signal, and is configured to match the tunable impedance (see respective transmitter and receiver adaptive matching control circuits 112, 123).
It would have been obvious to incorporate said transmit and receiver adaptive matching as taught by Choi into the system of Lee with the motivation of providing maximized power transfer efficiency and ensure stable operation by minimizing reflections and maximizing the transfer of energy.
Claims 12 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2014/0194058 in view of Bae US 9,601,946.
Lee teaches:
12. An apparatus for adjusting power transmission to an implantable device operating in a biological environment, the apparatus comprising:
a wireless power transmitter (210, FIG2) operating at a power signal frequency (RF, see Abstract) and having:
(a) one or more transmitting antennae (218, FIG2) configured to transmit a power signal; and
a wireless power receiver (220, FIG2) having one or more receiving antennae (221) configured to receive the transmitted power signal as a received power signal.
Lee fails to teach:
(b) a circuit for detecting feedback from the implantable device; and
wherein the feedback from an implantable device is encoded by varying an impedance of the wireless power receiver; and wherein the feedback is used to control the transmitted power signal.
Bae teaches an apparatus for adjusting power transmission comprising (b) a circuit for detecting feedback from a wireless receiver device (see 220, 230, FIG1); and
wherein the feedback from a receiver device is encoded by varying an impedance of the wireless power receiver; and wherein the feedback is used to control the transmitted power signal (see Claim 7 and FIG4).
It would have been obvious to include the circuitry and functionality of transmitter side feedback detection and receiver side data transmission as taught by Bae into the system of Lee with the desired function of allowing the implanted device of Lee to communication with the transmitter and to control power control such as to allow for stopping charging when the implanted battery is fully charged, see Step S107, FIG4 and corresponding Specification of Bae.
Lee teaches:
18. The apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the power signal frequency has a wavelength usable in the biological environment (as taught by the use of the receiver used as an implant in the biological environment of a body [0003].
Lee fails to teach the spacing used between the transmitter and receiver used as comprising: the wireless power transmitter and the wireless power receiver are spaced apart by a distance in the range between wavelength/100 and wavelength*100.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find and provide the desired distance between the transmitter and receiver including the distance defined by a distance in the range between wavelength/100 and wavelength*100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836