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 .
Priority
Claims 1-20 are deemed to have an effective filing date of June 13, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “215” has been used to designate several different versions of an extension: a circular extension (Fig. 9A), a linear extension (Figs. 9B, 9C, 10B, 10C, 11C), an extension outside of area A (Fig. 9D, Fig. 11D), an angled extension Figs. 10D, 10E), and a linear extension with a circular extension at one end (Fig. 11B). The Examiner suggests adding prime(s) to “215” to distinguish the different embodiments.
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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference numeral “202” is described as an electrical connection in paragraphs [0044], [0048]-[0029] of the originally-filed specification. After the connection 202 is described as “comprises an RF feed” in paragraphs [0054], [0091], [0093], [0098]-[0099], the specification uses “202” after “RF feed” and “connection” in paragraph [0057]-[0058]. “RF feed connection 202” and “RF feed signal at connection 202” as described in paragraphs [0063]-[0064] clearly indicate that “202” is still an electrical connection. Please amend “RF feed 202” so that it is clear that 202 is an electrical connection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-16 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.
Claim 13 recites “the first and second ends” in lines 1-2 and lines 3-4. It is unclear to what those ends refer. Thus, the scope of the claim is vague and indefinite. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as: further comprising a resonant capacitor and an inductance of a resonant tank that forms an AC voltage in the second mode …
Claims 12 and 14 recite “a plurality of electrical connections” and “the control circuitry configures a third of the electrical connections”, respectively. But claim 15 refers to “the first, second, or third electrical connections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the specific electrical connections in claim 15. Thus, the scope of the claim is vague and indefinite. The Examiner has interpreted this claim as referring to three electrical connections of the antenna.
Similarly, claim 16 recites “the third electrical connection”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this electrical connection. Thus, the scope of the claim is vague and indefinite. The Examiner has interpreted this claim as having an electrical connection with the antenna that is inactive.
Claim 14 is rejected because it depends from an indefinite claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20180200527 to Aghassian et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Aghassian”) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0285158 to Meulmester et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Meulmester”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0064946 to Aghassian (hereinafter referred to as “Aghassian ‘946”).
Regarding claim 1, Aghassian discloses an implantable medical device (IMD) (e.g., abstract), comprising: a case (e.g., paragraph [0020]; Fig. 2A, case 12) ; a non-conductive header attached to the case (e.g., paragraph [0021]; Fig. 2A, header 28 and paragraph [0004]: non-conductive header 28); an antenna within or on the header (e.g., paragraph [0022]:header 28 includes a charging coil 102 and RF antenna 105 integrated with the charging coil 102), wherein the antenna is configurable to operate in a first mode for far-field radiofrequency (RF) data communications with an external system (e.g., paragraph [0023]: charging coil 102 also comprises part of an RF antenna 105 used to receive and transmit RF data along RF data link 40b where the frequency used with far-field electromagnetic link 40b may be between 10MHz and 100 GHz), and in a second mode to receive a near-field magnetic charging field to power the IMD (e.g., paragraphs [0022]: charging coil 102 will receive wireless power via magnetic induction link 42a; and [0038]: IMD charging link 42a is preferably a near-field magnetic induction link); and control circuitry within the case (e.g., paragraph [0033]: the majority of the operating circuitry of the IMD including microcontroller 120; Fig. 3, 120), but does not expressly disclose that its controller is configured to configure operation of the antenna in the first and second modes in a time multiplexed manner.
However, Meulmester, in a related art: IMD antenna having an RF signal branch and an inductive branch, teaches that the telemetry circuit 700 of the IMD is activated by a control signal 706 from microcontroller 660 of the IMD (e.g., paragraph [0062] of Meulmester); and Aghassian ‘946 teaches that a telemetry request initiated by a user or automatic to initiate a charging session and that charging and data telemetry are time domain multiplexed such that the controller and the antenna are dedicated to either a data telemetry session or a charging session at any given point in time (e.g., paragraph [0046]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a controller within the IMD to activate the telemetry circuit of the IMD to receive the data or charging session in a time multiplexed manner in view of the teachings of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the implantable medical device of Aghassian so that its control circuitry is configured to configure operation of its antenna in the first and second modes in a time multiplexed manner in view of the teachings of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 that such was a known engineering protocol in the implantable medical device art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result: the IMD telemetry circuit and controller would be able to handle the incoming/outgoing data and energy sessions.
With respect 2, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the antenna is within the header (e.g., Aghassian’s paragraph [0022] and Fig. 2A, header 28 and antenna 102/105).
As to claim 3, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches he IMD of claim 2, wherein the header is overmolded over the antenna (e.g., paragraph [0022] of Aghassian: header is connected to the case by overmolding).
With respect to claim 4, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the header further comprises at least one lead connector into which at least one lead can be inserted (e.g., Aghassian’s paragraphs [0004]: IMD 10 is coupled to electrodes 16 via leads 18 inserted in lead connectors 28; and [0020]: the improved IMD structure that does not differ from that illustrated in Figs. 1A and 1B will not be discussed).
As to claim 5, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 4, wherein the antenna is formed in a plane (e.g., paragraph [0028] of Aghassian: charging coil 102 is wound in a plane Y).
With respect to claim 6, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 5, wherein the plane is perpendicular to a top of the case to which the header is attached (e.g., paragraph [0028] of Aghassian: Plane Y is perpendicular to a plane X of the feedthrough 106; see Fig. 2B).
As to claim 7, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 6, wherein the plane is offset in the header in a direction parallel with the top of the case (e.g., Fig. 2B shows that plane Y is offset in the header 28).
With respect to claim 8, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 5, wherein the antenna comprises at least one planar sheet of metal (e.g., Aghassian paragraphs [0024] and [0029]: RF antenna 105 includes a pick-up 104 capacitively coupled to the charging coil 102 to which antenna 105 is integrated and pick-up coil 104 may comprise a flat conductive sheet).
As to claim 9, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the antenna is three dimensional (the antenna formed by 102 and 105 has a length, a width and a height, see Fig. 2A).
With respect to claim 10, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the antenna is loop shaped (e.g., paragraph [0026] of Aghassian: charging coil 102 can be oval or rectangular shaped).
As to claim 11, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the antenna comprises a top horizontal portion, a right vertical portion, and a left vertical portion (e.g., paragraph [0026] of Aghassian: when the charging coil 102 is rectangular).
With respect to claim 12, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, further comprising a feedthrough between the header and the case (e.g., paragraph [0021] of Aghassian: Figs. 2A and 2B, feedthrough 106), and further comprising a plurality of electrical connections to the antenna, wherein the plurality of electrical connection pass through the feedthrough (e.g., paragraph [0021] of Aghassian: Figs. 2A and 2B, passages 108 pass electrical signals between the antenna and case 12 through feedthrough 108).
As to claim 13, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 12, further comprising a resonant capacitor, wherein an inductance between the first and second ends and the resonant capacitor comprise a resonant tank to form an AC voltage across the first and second ends in the second mode in response to the magnetic charging field, wherein the AC voltage provides the power to the IMD (e.g., paragraph [0031] of Aghassian: when receiving power vial link 42a it is useful to tune the circuitry to AC resonate at a frequency by adjusting the inductance of charging coil 102 and its parallel capacitor (C2), which together comprise a resonant tank circuit).
With respect to claim 14, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 13, wherein during the first mode the control circuitry configures a third of the electrical connections to operate as an RF feed for the RF data communications (e.g., paragraph [0027] of Aghassian: one of the three passages for signal 114 operates as an RF feed for RF telemetry circuitry 122 (Fig. 3)).
As to claim 15, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 14, wherein none of the first, second, or third electrical connections are directly connected to the case in either of the first or second modes (e.g., paragraph [0021] of Aghassian: passages 108 are sintered using glass ferrules and feedthrough 106 is welded to the case 12- thus the passages are not directly connected to the case).
With respect to claim 16, as best understood, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 14, wherein during the second mode the third electrical connection is inactive (e.g., paragraph [0027] of Aghassian: one of the three passages for signal 114 operates as an RF feed for RF telemetry circuitry 122 (Fig. 3) – thus, it would be inactive during power charging).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0177878 to Poore et al (hereinafter referred to as “Poore”).
With respect to claim 17, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, but does not expressly teach that the control circuitry is configured to default to operation in the first mode. However, Poore, in a related art: implantable medical device, teaches that when there are multiple modes of operation, a default mode may be stored within the memory of a processor so that in the event the implantable medical device malfunctions, the device can automatically switch to a default mode of operation stored in in the memory (e.g., paragraph [0087] of Poore). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of having the control circuitry programmed to have a default mode in view of the teachings of Poore. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the above combination so that the control circuitry is configured to default to an operation in view of the teachings of Poore, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result. With respect to the default operation being the first mode, it would have been further obvious to program the control circuitry so that the default mode is for RF data communications since there are only two options: far-field RF data communication and near-field magnetic charging and if the IMD is fully charged, it would make sense to have the default operation being RF data communication as that is what the IMD would need if a glitch occurs and the IMD needs to restart.
As to claim 18, Aghassian in view of Meulmester, Aghassian ‘946, and Poore teaches the IMD of claim 17, wherein the control circuitry is configured to receive a charging request to switch to operation in the second mode (e.g., paragraph [0046] of Aghassian ‘946: Fig. 6, 608). Meulmester teaches that the telemetry circuit 700 of the IMD is activated by a control signal 706 from microcontroller 660 of the IMD (e.g., paragraph [0062] of Meulmester). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of receiving a charging request in view of the teachings of Aghassian ‘946. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the IMD of the above combination so that the control signal 706 of the control circuitry activates the telemetry circuit to begin a charging session in response to a charging request in view of the teachings of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 19, Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946 teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to default to operation in the second mode. However, Poore, in a related art: implantable medical device, teaches that when there are multiple modes of operation, a default mode may be stored within the memory of a processor so that in the event the implantable medical device malfunctions, the device can automatically switch to a default mode of operation stored in in the memory (e.g., paragraph [0087] of Poore). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of having the control circuitry programmed to have a default mode in view of the teachings of Poore. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the above combination so that the control circuitry is configured to default to an operation in view of the teachings of Poore, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result. With respect to the default operation being the second mode, it would have been further obvious to program the control circuitry so that the default mode is for a power charging session since there are only two options: far-field RF data communication and near-field magnetic charging and if the IMD is not fully charged and is charging, it would make sense to have the default operation being near-field magnetic charging as that is what the IMD would need if a glitch occurs and the IMD needs to restart.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946, and Poore as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0131033 to Cantatore et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Cantatore”.
Aghassian in view of Meulmester, Aghassian ‘946, and Poore teaches the IMD of claim 19, but does not expressly teach that the control circuitry is configured to automatically switch operation to the first mode after a duration. However, Cantatore, in a related art: IMD with an antenna system with a safety mode, teaches that the control circuit comprises a timer for triggering return to a safety mode after a predetermined time has elapse after the start of an operational mode (e.g., paragraphs [0011]-[0014]). While claim 20 recites that the control circuitry is configured to automatically switch operation to a first mode or RF data communications after a duration, one of ordinary skill in the art reading Cantatore would have recognized the benefits of automatically switching from one operation mode to another operation mode in view of the teachings of Cantatore. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the IMD of Aghassian in view of Meulmester and Aghassian ‘946, and Poore so that its control circuitry is configured to automatically switch operation to the first mode after a duration in view of the teachings of Cantatore that such was a well-known engineering protocol in the IMD art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result. With respect to the type of mode being switch, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to switch from the second mode (magnetic charging) to the first mode (RF data communications) since there are only two modes to choose from.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/035922 to Li et al. is directed to antenna structures for Implantable Medical Devices where a dual purpose antenna 308 (paragraph [0013] and Fig. 3) which incorporate two antennas into a single antenna structure (e.g., paragraph [0025]: the single antenna receives wireless signals within a high-frequency band or far-field radiofrequency) and receives wireless signals within a low-frequency band (near-field communication band).
US Patent No. 7,729, 776 to Von Arx et al. is directed to an implantable medical device with two or more telemetry systems where the controller uses switches to go between the types of telemetry systems (column 4, line 52-column 5, line 20; and column 6, lines 1-8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792