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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1).
Per claim 1, Ruers teaches an implantable device comprising (an implantable probe 100/908. See, e.g., paras. [0008], [0059], [0120]);
a flexible circuit including a substrate carrying (Ruers discloses that “the probe may comprise a rigid circuit and a flex circuit following a circumference of the probe,” and further teaches that “the flex circuit allows for an extremely compact design.” See para. [0021]. Ruers also teaches that “the components may be integrated on a flexible PCB,” and that “a flexible PCB may be a layer of material that can be bent.” See para. [0087]. Ruers further teaches flexible board 802 as part of the implantable probe structure. See paras. [0088]-[0089]):
a power harvesting antenna configured to operate at a first frequency, the power harvesting antenna being configured to induce a current in response to being disposed in an alternating electromagnetic field (Ruers teaches that “the probe may further comprise an energy harvesting coil for harvesting energy from an electromagnetic signal” (para. [0013]); that “the energy harvesting coil of the probe may be among the at least one antenna” (para. [0014]); that an auxiliary device includes “a wireless power supply coil configured to transmit an energy-containing electromagnetic signal to the probe” (para. [0022]); and that “the energy harvesting component is an energy harvesting coil 105” and “the wireless power supply coil 604 is configured to transmit an energy-containing electromagnetic signal to the probe” (para. [0071]). Ruers further teaches storage of energy harvested using energy harvesting coil 105. See para. [0086]. Thus, Ruers teaches a harvesting antenna/coil that receives energy from an alternating electromagnetic field and induces corresponding current for harvesting); and
a Bluetooth antenna configured to operate at a second frequency different than the first frequency, the Bluetooth antenna being configured to radiate radiofrequency energy to transmit data to an external device (Ruers teaches that “the implantable probe 100 further comprises an antenna 104 configured to perform low-power communication with a nearby device,” and expressly states that “the antenna 104 may use low-power Bluetooth.” See para. [0066]. Ruers also teaches that antenna 104 may transmit communication signals by radiofrequency electric field telemetry and that the probe transmits generated data through separate antenna 104. See para. [0074]).
But, Ruers does not explicitly teach, verbatim that both antenna 104 and harvesting coil 105 are carried on the same flexible circuit substrate. However, Ruers expressly teaches all of the relevant components within the same implantable probe, and expressly teaches use of a flex circuit / flexible PCB to provide an extremely compact implantable construction. Ruers also teaches that antenna 104 and harvesting coil 105 may be implemented as separate components of the probe, or combined, depending on compact design considerations. See paras. [0073], [0087]-[0089].
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Ruers’ known Bluetooth communication antenna 104 and known energy harvesting coil 105 on the flexible PCB / flex-circuit substrate taught by Ruers, because Ruers expressly teaches the flexible PCB architecture for compact miniaturization of the implantable probe and teaches that the communication antenna and harvesting coil are probe components arranged according to compact design needs. Doing so would have merely involved the predictable use of Ruers’ disclosed flexible substrate arrangement to carry Ruers’ disclosed antenna structures in order to reduce size, improve implantability, and facilitate compact packaging of the implantable probe.
Per claim 3, Ruers teaches wherein the substrate comprises a first broad surface and a second broad surface opposite the first broad surface along a thickness of the substrate (Ruers discloses a flex circuit / flexible PCB / flexible board 802 forming the substrate of the implantable probe. See paras. [0021], [0087]-[0089]. The flexible PCB is disclosed as a bendable layer of material, and the flexible board 802 is shown in FIGS. 7, 8, and 14 as a sheet-like board having opposite outer faces across its thickness. Therefore, Ruers teaches or at least renders obvious a substrate having a first broad surface and a second broad surface opposite the first broad surface along the substrate thickness).
Per claim 4, Ruers teaches wherein each of the first and second broad surfaces is substantially ovular (Ruers discloses flexible board / flexible PCB structures and associated antenna/coil geometries having rounded elongated oval-type shapes, as shown in the illustrated embodiments of the implantable probe and related coil structures. See, e.g., Fig. 5 depicting the rounded elongated board/probe geometry and the ovular coil geometry).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Dinsmoor et al. (US 2012/0274270 A1) and further in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2022/0054846 A1).
Per claim 2, Ruers teaches the limitations of claim 1 as previously shown above, including an implantable probe, a flexible circuit / flexible PCB arrangement, an energy harvesting coil 105, and a Bluetooth antenna 104. In particular, Ruers teaches that antenna 104 may use low-power Bluetooth at para [0066], teaches that the energy harvesting component is energy harvesting coil 105 and that wireless power supply coil 604 transmits an energy-containing electromagnetic signal to the probe at para [0071], and teaches the flexible PCB / flexible board arrangement at para [0087]-[0089].
But, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the power harvesting antenna is configured to operate between about 100 kHz and about 900 MHz and the Bluetooth antenna is configured to operate between about 2.4 GHz and about 2.483 GHz.
Dinsmoor teaches implantable medical devices using inductive telemetry and recharge at different frequencies. Dinsmoor teaches that the inductive downlink may be obtained by a coil tuned to a telemetry frequency of 175 kilohertz at para [0003]. Dinsmoor further teaches that recharge energy may be received by an external device coil tuned to a recharge frequency, for example, 100 kilohertz, at para [0004]. Dinsmoor also teaches generally that a single implant coil may be used for both telemetry and recharge at different frequencies. See Abstract and para [0006]-[0007].
Sandhu teaches implanted medical devices communicating via standard wireless communication protocols such as Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy operating in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz frequency band. See Abstract and para [0002]-[0004]. Sandhu further teaches a bandwidth including a frequency range between 2.4 GHz and 2.4835 GHz at para [0066]-[0067], and teaches that the data conforms to a Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy communication protocol at para [0070].
Accordingly, Dinsmoor teaches the claimed lower-frequency implant harvesting range by expressly teaching 100 kilohertz recharge operation and 175 kilohertz implant telemetry operation, both of which fall within the recited between about 100 kHz and about 900 MHz range. Sandhu teaches the claimed Bluetooth frequency range by expressly teaching Bluetooth / BLE operation in the 2.4 GHz to 2.4835 GHz band, which encompasses the recited between about 2.4 GHz and about 2.483 GHz range. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the Ruers harvesting link to operate at known implant inductive recharge / telemetry frequencies such as the 100 kilohertz recharge frequency taught by Dinsmoor, and to configure the Ruers Bluetooth antenna to operate in the standard Bluetooth band taught by Sandhu, in order to use known implant power-transfer frequencies for harvesting and known standardized Bluetooth frequencies for external wireless communication. Such a combination would have predictably allowed the Ruers implant to harvest power using a conventional low-frequency inductive link while communicating with external devices using the established Bluetooth frequency band.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Nyberg, II et al. (US 2015/0025613 A1).
Per claim 5, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate comprises multiple layers.
In an analogous art, Nyberg teaches in the Abstract “a multilayer flexible printed circuit board comprising a first flexible substrate, second flexible substrate, and third flexible substrate.” Nyberg further teaches in claim 1 “an implantable antenna assembly comprising: a multilayer flexible printed circuit board comprising a first flexible substrate, second flexible substrate, and third flexible substrate.” Nyberg also teaches that the disclosed principles may be used to create antenna assemblies on a multilayer substrate and that the multilayer antenna assembly is “an extremely thin, strong design.” See para [0058].
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the flexible circuit substrate of Ruers as a multilayer flexible printed circuit structure as taught by Nyberg, because Nyberg teaches a multilayer flexible printed circuit board for an implantable antenna assembly and further teaches that the multilayer antenna assembly provides an extremely thin, strong design. Doing so would have predictably provided improved structural suitability, additional layout flexibility, and compact packaging for the implantable device while retaining Ruers’ implantable Bluetooth and harvesting architecture.
Per claim 14, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible circuit comprises a ground plate electrically coupled to the power harvesting antenna and electrically isolated from the Bluetooth antenna.
Nyberg teaches a conductive shield / ground structure associated with an implantable inductor coil and isolated from other conductive structures. In particular, Nyberg teaches in the Abstract that “a shield is formed by electrically conductive traces disposed on the second flexible substrate and third flexible substrate, the shield surrounding the inductor coil.” Nyberg further teaches in claim 1 “an implantable antenna assembly comprising: a multilayer flexible printed circuit board … an inductor coil … and a shield … the shield surrounding the inductor coil.” Nyberg also teaches that the shield terminals 187 may be connected to electrical ground, and that the shield can protect the inductor 190 from noise and external objects, thereby stabilizing the properties of the inductor coil. See para [0028]. Nyberg further teaches that the shield traces are formed on different flexible substrates than the inductor traces, with upper shield traces 185 on one substrate and lower shield traces 186 on another substrate, while the inductor traces 188 are on substrate 610. See para [0030]-[0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a ground plate / shield structure into Ruers’ flexible circuit and electrically couple that structure to the harvesting antenna while maintaining electrical isolation from the separate Bluetooth antenna, as taught by Nyberg, because Nyberg teaches that the grounded shield reduces noise and stabilizes the inductor properties. Doing so would have predictably reduced interference with the harvesting structure and improved reliable coexistence of the harvesting antenna and Bluetooth antenna on the compact implant substrate.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Nyberg, II et al. (US 2015/0025613 A1) and further in view of Caparso et al. (US 2020/0346024 A1).
Per claim 6, Ruers in view of Nyberg does not explicitly teach wherein the Bluetooth antenna is located on a different layer of the multiple layers of the substrate than the power harvesting antenna.
However, in an analogous art, Caparso teaches placement of coil structures on different sides / layers of a substrate. In particular, Caparso teaches “an upper coil including a plurality of coil turns is disposed on the upper surface of the substrate” and “a lower coil including a plurality of coil turns is disposed on the lower surface of the substrate.” See Abstract. Caparso further teaches that the substrate has “an upper surface 44 and a lower surface 46,” that “an upper coil 34” is on the upper surface and “a lower coil 36” is on the lower surface. See para [0069]. Caparso also teaches that the upper and lower coils are electrically connected through the substrate by connectors 42. See para [0072]-[0073].
Accordingly, Nyberg teaches the claimed multilayer flexible substrate, and Caparso teaches the known use of different coil / antenna structures on different layers / sides of a flexible substrate. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate Ruers’ Bluetooth antenna on one layer of the Nyberg multilayer flexible substrate and to locate Ruers’ power harvesting antenna on a different layer, as taught by Caparso’s different-side coil arrangement, because doing so would have predictably improved layout flexibility in the constrained implant form factor, facilitated compact multilayer packaging, and reduced undesired coupling between the communication antenna and the harvesting antenna.
Per claim 7, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the power harvesting antenna is located on at least two of the multiple layers of the substrate.
Nyberg teaches the multilayer substrate arrangement. Nyberg expressly teaches in the Abstract “a multilayer flexible printed circuit board comprising a first flexible substrate, second flexible substrate, and third flexible substrate.” Nyberg further teaches in claim 1 “an implantable antenna assembly comprising: a multilayer flexible printed circuit board comprising a first flexible substrate, second flexible substrate, and third flexible substrate.” Nyberg also teaches that the disclosed principles may be used to create antenna assemblies on a multilayer substrate and that the multilayer antenna assembly is “an extremely thin, strong design.” See para [0058].
Caparso teaches a harvesting antenna located on at least two layers / sides of a substrate. In particular, Caparso teaches in the Abstract “an upper coil including a plurality of coil turns is disposed on the upper surface of the substrate” and “a lower coil including a plurality of coil turns is disposed on the lower surface of the substrate,” with the upper and lower coils electrically connected to each other. Caparso further teaches that the substrate has “an upper surface 44 and a lower surface 46,” that “an upper coil 34” is disposed on the upper surface, and that “a lower coil 36” is disposed on the lower surface. See para [0069]. Caparso also teaches that the upper and lower coils are electrically connected through the substrate by connectors 42. See para [0072]-[0073].
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Ruers’ power harvesting antenna on at least two layers of the Nyberg multilayer flexible substrate, as taught by Caparso’s upper-coil / lower-coil arrangement, because doing so would have predictably increased available inductance and power-reception capability while maintaining a compact implantable form factor. Such an arrangement would also have provided improved use of limited substrate area in the implant device while retaining Ruers’ implantable Bluetooth and harvesting architecture.
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2022/0054846 A1).
Per claim 8, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the power harvesting antenna comprises a plurality of turns and the Bluetooth antenna is located radially within an innermost turn of the plurality of turns.
In an analogous art, Sandhu teaches a Bluetooth antenna positioned with respect to a charging coil in an implantable medical device. In particular, Sandhu teaches a header section 500 including an inverted F antenna (IFA) and a charging coil 540. See para [0030]-[0031]. Sandhu further teaches that the charging coil 540 is disposed proximate to an outer face of the header section and that the IFA is “positioned behind and proximate to the charging coil.” See para [0031]. Sandhu also teaches that the IFA and charging coil are spatially positioned relative to one another inside the header section to enhance a radiation property of the IFA at the desired 2.4 GHz frequency band, and that the charging coil and IFA work together for Bluetooth / BLE communication. See para [0031], para [0036]-[0037], and para [0070]-[0071].
Sandhu therefore teaches a Bluetooth communication antenna disposed inside the implant in close positional relationship with a power / charging coil, with the Bluetooth antenna located interior to the charging-coil region rather than being spaced remotely elsewhere in the device. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position Ruers’ Bluetooth antenna radially within the innermost-turn region of Ruers’ harvesting coil in the manner suggested by Sandhu’s arrangement of an implant Bluetooth antenna proximate to and inside the region defined by the charging coil, because doing so would have predictably conserved area on the flexible circuit, improved compact packaging of the implant, and allowed the Bluetooth communication structure and the harvesting / charging structure to coexist within the limited implant footprint.
Per claim 16, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the second frequency is within a predetermined frequency range defined by a maximum frequency and a minimum frequency.
Sandhu teaches this limitation. Sandhu teaches that many wireless personal area networks, such as Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy, operate in the “2.4 to 2.4835 GHz” Industrial, Scientific, and Medical band. See para [0004]. Sandhu further teaches that the disclosed implanted medical device communicates using Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy operating in the 2.4 GHz frequency band. See Abstract and para [0002]. Accordingly, Sandhu teaches a predetermined frequency range for the Bluetooth antenna defined by a minimum frequency of 2.4 GHz and a maximum frequency of 2.4835 GHz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Ruers’ Bluetooth antenna to operate within the predetermined Bluetooth frequency range taught by Sandhu, because Sandhu teaches that Bluetooth / BLE implant communications are performed within that standard band. Doing so would have predictably allowed Ruers’ implantable communication antenna to use a known standardized Bluetooth operating range for reliable communication with external devices.
Per claim 17, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein a return loss of the Bluetooth antenna at any given frequency within the predetermined frequency range is at least −10 dB.
Sandhu teaches that the bandwidth of the implant antenna may correspond to “a bandwidth in which the return loss is less than 10 dB.” See para [0066]. Sandhu further teaches that the bandwidth may include a frequency range between 2.4 GHz and 2.4835 GHz. See para [0066]-[0067]. Sandhu also claims an implantable medical device “wherein the bandwidth corresponds to a bandwidth in which the return loss is less than 10 dB” and “the bandwidth includes a frequency range between 2.4 GHz and 2.4835 GHz.” See claim 13 and claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Ruers’ Bluetooth antenna to satisfy the return-loss performance taught by Sandhu across the Bluetooth operating band, because Sandhu teaches that such return-loss performance is associated with effective Bluetooth / BLE implant communication across the 2.4 GHz band. Doing so would have predictably improved communication efficiency and reliability of the Ruers implant when communicating with external devices in the Bluetooth frequency range.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2022/0054846 A1) and further in view of Caparso et al. (US 2020/0346024 A1).
Per claim 9, Ruers in view of Sandhu does not explicitly teach wherein the Bluetooth antenna is radially separated from the innermost turn of the power harvesting antenna by at least about 0.5 mm.
However, in an analogous art, Caparso teaches a spiral coil having defined spacing between adjacent turns. In particular, Caparso teaches that “each adjacent coil turn 40 can be spaced apart from one another by a predefined coil pitch P,” and teaches in one example that “the coil pitch P can be about 1.0 mm.” See para [0065]. Caparso further teaches a compact implantable substrate arrangement in which the coil geometry and spacing are selected as part of the implantable antenna design. See para [0063]-[0065] and para [0069].
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least about a 0.5 mm radial separation between the Bluetooth antenna and the innermost turn of the Ruers / Sandhu harvesting-coil arrangement in view of Caparso’s teaching of defined coil spacing, because doing so would have predictably reduced undesired electromagnetic coupling, improved tuning stability, and facilitated more reliable coexistence of the Bluetooth communication structure and the harvesting coil within the compact implantable device.
Per claim 10, Ruers in view of Sandhu does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible circuit further comprises power harvesting circuitry and a power harvesting circuitry connection connecting an outermost turn of the plurality of turns to the power harvesting circuitry, wherein the power harvesting circuitry connection extends orthogonally to a superimposed portion of the Bluetooth antenna.
However, Caparso teaches a harvesting coil structure having multiple turns on a flexible substrate and electrical connections from the coil structure to associated circuitry. In particular, Caparso teaches upper coil 34 and lower coil 36 disposed on opposite sides of substrate 38, and teaches conductive connectors 42 extending through the substrate to electrically connect corresponding coil turns of the upper and lower coils. See para [0069] and para [0072]-[0073]. Caparso further teaches lead conductors 80 for connecting the antenna structure to another implant circuitry. See para [0059]-[0060] and para [0074].
Ruers in view of Sandhu does not expressly disclose that the harvesting-circuit connection extends orthogonally to a superimposed portion of the Bluetooth antenna. However, once the Bluetooth antenna and harvesting coil are arranged in overlapping compact fashion as taught by Ruers in view of Sandhu, and once conductive connection paths from the harvesting coil to circuitry are provided as taught by Caparso, the particular orientation of that connection path across the Bluetooth-antenna region would have been an obvious flexible-PCB routing choice. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to route the harvesting-circuit connection from the outermost turn orthogonally across a superimposed portion of the Bluetooth antenna, because such orthogonal routing would have predictably facilitated compact multilayer / planar layout, allowed the harvesting coil to be electrically connected to harvesting circuitry without consuming additional radial area, and reduced prolonged parallel overlap that could increase undesired coupling between the harvesting connection path and the Bluetooth antenna.
Per claim 11, Ruers in view of Sandhu does not explicitly teach wherein the Bluetooth antenna comprises a Bluetooth antenna path extending from a first end to a second end, and wherein the first end is radially within an innermost turn of the plurality of turns of the power harvesting antenna and the second end is radially outside of an outermost turn of the plurality of turns of the power harvesting antenna, such that the Bluetooth antenna path extends across the plurality of turns.
However, Caparso teaches a coil structure having both an innermost-turn connection location and an outermost-turn connection location with a conductive path extending through the turn region. In particular, Caparso teaches that connector 42 may connect “the innermost turn 40 of the upper coil 34 to the innermost turn 40 of the lower coil 36,” and that another connector 42 may connect “the outermost turn 40 of the upper coil 34 to the outermost turn 40 of the lower coil 36.” See para [0072]. Caparso further teaches terminals 46, and teaches that “one terminal 46 can be connected to a terminal end of the innermost turn 40” and “the other terminal 46 can be connected to a terminal end of the outermost turn 40,” with the terminals extending in the space between the ends of the remaining turns. See para [0073].
Ruers in view of Sandhu and Caparso does not expressly disclose, verbatim, that the Bluetooth antenna path itself extends from a first end radially within an innermost turn to a second end radially outside an outermost turn. However, once the Bluetooth antenna and harvesting coil are arranged in overlapping compact fashion as taught by Ruers in view of Sandhu, and once a conductive path extending from an inner-turn region to an outer-turn region across the coil structure is taught by Caparso, it would have been obvious to configure the Bluetooth antenna path with that same inner-to-outer routing across the harvesting-coil turns. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to route the Bluetooth antenna path from a first end within the innermost-turn region to a second end outside the outermost-turn region, as suggested by Caparso’s inner-turn / outer-turn terminal path arrangement, because doing so would have predictably increased usable Bluetooth antenna path length within the constrained implant area while allowing the Bluetooth antenna and harvesting coil to coexist in a compact overlapping layout.
Per claim 12, Ruers in view of Sandhu does not explicitly teach wherein the Bluetooth antenna path extends orthogonally across at least a portion of the plurality of turns of the power harvesting antenna.
Caparso teaches conductive paths associated with the coil structure extending across the turn region on the implant substrate. In particular, Caparso teaches that connectors 42 extend through substrate 38 to electrically connect corresponding coil turns of the upper and lower coils. See para [0072]. Caparso further teaches terminals 46 connected to the innermost and outermost turn regions, with the terminals extending in the space between the ends of the remaining turns. See para [0073]. Caparso also teaches lead conductors 80 connecting the antenna structure to another circuitry of the implant. See para [0059]-[0060].
Ruers in view of Sandhu and Caparso does not expressly disclose, verbatim, that the Bluetooth antenna path extends orthogonally across at least a portion of the harvesting-coil turns. However, once the Bluetooth antenna and harvesting coil are arranged in overlapping compact fashion as taught by Ruers in view of Sandhu, and once conductive paths are known to traverse the coil-turn region as taught by Caparso, orienting the Bluetooth antenna path orthogonally across at least a portion of the turns would have been an obvious flexible-PCB routing choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to route the Bluetooth antenna path orthogonally across at least a portion of the harvesting-coil turns, because such routing would have predictably increased usable Bluetooth antenna path length within the constrained implant footprint, facilitated compact coexistence of the Bluetooth and harvesting structures, and reduced extended parallel overlap that could increase undesired coupling between the Bluetooth path and the harvesting coil.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Sweeney et al. (US 2019/0076033 A1).
Per claim 13, Ruers teaches physical separation of the two antenna components because Ruers teaches that antenna 104 and harvesting coil 105 may be implemented as separate components of the probe. See para [0073]-[0074]. However, Ruers does not expressly teach the claimed performance relationship that the signal generated in the harvesting antenna at the second frequency is less than a noise floor of the Bluetooth antenna.
Sweeney teaches reducing interference between separate coil structures so as to improve signal-to-noise performance. In particular, Sweeney teaches that when a single antenna-coil is used for both transmit and receive signals, a switching mechanism may be used to eliminate interference between the transmitted signal and the received signal. See para [0134]. Sweeney further teaches that when separate transmit and receive coils are employed, “the receive coil may be geometrically decoupled from the transmit coil to eliminate interference between the two, even when operating simultaneously.” See para [0134]. Sweeney also teaches that “use of a larger receiver coil maximizes signal-to-noise ratio.” See para [0134]. Sweeney additionally teaches that geometric decoupling, damping, detuning, and/or switching may be used to prevent transmit pulse signals from being picked up by the receive coil while the transmit coil is transmitting. See para [0136].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to physically separate and geometrically decouple Ruers’ harvesting antenna and Bluetooth antenna in the manner taught by Sweeney, because Sweeney teaches that such decoupling eliminates interference between separate coil structures and maximizes signal-to-noise ratio. Doing so would have predictably reduced undesired pickup of second-frequency signal components in the harvesting antenna and improved the reliability of Bluetooth communication, such that any induced second-frequency component coupled from the harvesting structure would be maintained below the effective communication noise level of the Bluetooth antenna path.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Larson et al. (US 2008/0288028 A1) and further in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2012/0059445 A1).
Per claim 15, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible circuit comprises a matching circuit electrically coupled to the Bluetooth antenna, wherein the matching circuit is configured to prevent or limit transmission of a component of the alternating electromagnetic field at the first frequency through the matching circuit.
Larson teaches an implantable antenna matching circuit electrically coupled to an implantable antenna. In particular, Larson teaches that “matching networks can be used in wireless systems to match a transceiver’s impedance to an antenna’s impedance” and that the matching network helps provide maximum power transfer. See para [0004]. Larson further teaches that an implantable medical device may automatically adjust a matching network for an implanted transceiver to dynamically maximize transmission and reception. See para [0006]. Larson also teaches a matching circuit between radio transceiver 102 and antenna 104, where the matching circuit may include inductors and capacitors between the transceiver and the antenna. See para [0015]-[0017]. Accordingly, Larson teaches the claimed matching circuit electrically coupled to the Bluetooth antenna.
Stevenson teaches limiting transmission of unwanted frequency components through an implant circuit path by use of a bandstop filter. In particular, Stevenson teaches “at least one bandstop filter is associated with a lead conductor for attenuating current flow through the lead over a range of frequencies.” See para [0112]. Stevenson further teaches a process for “attenuating RF current flow” by selecting an inductor and parasitic capacitor combination that forms an L-C bandstop filter resonant at a selected center frequency or across a selected range of frequencies and placing that bandstop filter in series with the conductor. See para [0045]. Stevenson also teaches that the overall Q and bandwidth of the bandstop filter may be controlled so as to attenuate current flow along a selected range of frequencies. See para [0042]-[0046]. Accordingly, Stevenson teaches the claimed function of preventing or limiting transmission of an undesired frequency component through a circuit path by use of a filter structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Larson matching circuit used with Ruers’ Bluetooth antenna to include the frequency-selective attenuation taught by Stevenson, so as to prevent or limit transmission of the first-frequency harvesting-field component through the Bluetooth matching circuit. Doing so would have predictably reduced undesired coupling of harvesting-link energy into the Bluetooth communication path, improved isolation between the harvesting antenna and the Bluetooth antenna, and improved reliability of Bluetooth communication in the compact implantable device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2022/0054846 A1) and further in view of Foore et al. (US 2017/0077598 A1).
Per claim 18, and based on rejection of claims 16 and 17, Sandhu teaches a Bluetooth / BLE implant antenna operating in the 2.4 GHz to 2.4835 GHz band and teaches a bandwidth in which the return loss is less than 10 dB across that operating range. See para [0004], para [0002], and para [0066]-[0067].
But, Ruers in view of Sandhu does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined frequency range is discretized into a plurality of frequency bands, and wherein a return loss of the Bluetooth antenna within each frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands is within 10% of the return loss of the Bluetooth antenna within every other frequency band of the plurality of frequency bands.
However, in an analogous art, Foore teaches shaping antenna response so that the return-loss characteristic is broad and relatively even across the operating range. In particular, Foore teaches that the first and second parasitic elements have slightly different lengths, “which results in a dual resonance.” See para [0039]. Foore further teaches that the two resonant peaks are “sufficiently close together so to efficiently radiate over at least 4.35% of the RF carrier bandwidth.” See para [0039]. Foore also teaches that the dual resonances produce “a wide bandwidth aggregate response,” and that the return loss is less than 10 dB when operating in a frequency range between approximately 450 MHz and approximately 470 MHz. See para [0039]-[0040]. Accordingly, Foore teaches the known antenna-design objective of using close dual resonances to produce a broad, relatively even return-loss response across an operating band, rather than a sharply varying response concentrated at only one narrow point in the band.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Ruers / Sandhu Bluetooth antenna so that its return-loss response remained relatively uniform across discretized portions of the Bluetooth operating range in view of Foore’s dual-resonance wide-band response teaching, because doing so would have predictably improved communication consistency across the full Bluetooth band, reduced band-edge degradation, and provided more stable implant telemetry performance over the predetermined Bluetooth frequency range.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2022/0054846 A1) and further in view of Wilbur et al. (US 2011/0006911 A1).
Per claim 19, and based on the rejection of claims 16 and 17, Sandhu teaches a predetermined Bluetooth operating range of 2.4 GHz to 2.4835 GHz. See para [0004]. Sandhu further teaches that, after matching, the return loss of the implant antenna operating at about 2.45 GHz can be better than 20 dB, and that the impedance bandwidth can be wider than the Bluetooth band with return loss better than 10 dB at each end of the Bluetooth band. See para [0040]. Thus, Sandhu teaches the Bluetooth band endpoints and teaches a strongly improved return-loss point at about 2.45 GHz, which is about halfway between 2.4 GHz and 2.4835 GHz.
But, Ruers in view of Sandhu does not explicitly teach wherein a return loss of the Bluetooth antenna is maximized at a center frequency of the predetermined frequency range, the center frequency being about halfway between the minimum frequency and the maximum frequency.
Wilbur teaches that return loss is optimized at the resonant frequency near the center of the operating band. In particular, Wilbur teaches that the return loss graph demonstrates the antenna has at least 10 dB reflection loss in a frequency band between approximately 450 MHz and 470 MHz, and that the antenna achieves approximately 30 dB reflection loss at approximately 460 MHz. Wilbur further teaches that the substantially low reflection loss at the approximate resonance frequency indicates that the matching network is effectively matching the antenna impedance to the input impedance, thereby maximizing radiation efficiency. See para [0032]. Wilbur also teaches that the resonant frequency falls between 449.8 MHz and 469.7 MHz, or approximately 460 MHz. See para [0030]-[0032]. Accordingly, Sandhu teaches the claimed Bluetooth range and an improved return-loss point at about the midpoint of that range, while Wilbur teaches the known antenna-design principle that return loss is optimized at the resonant / center operating frequency within the intended band.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Ruers / Sandhu Bluetooth antenna so that the best return-loss point occurs at about the center of the intended Bluetooth operating band, as taught by Wilbur’s resonance-centered return-loss optimization, because doing so would have predictably maximized communication efficiency near the middle of the operating range while preserving acceptable return-loss performance toward the band edges. This would have provided improved Bluetooth telemetry reliability across the full predetermined band in the implantable device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Sandhu et al. (US 2022/0054846 A1) and further in view of Larson et al. (US 2008/0288028 A1).
Per claim 20, Ruers does not explicitly teach wherein the Bluetooth antenna is configured to have a first impedance once the implantable device is positioned within a patient, and wherein the flexible circuit comprises: a Bluetooth module having a second impedance different than the first impedance, the Bluetooth module being configured to transmit a radiofrequency signal to the Bluetooth antenna to cause the Bluetooth antenna to radiate the radiofrequency energy; and a matching circuit electrically coupled to and positioned between the Bluetooth module and the Bluetooth antenna, the matching circuit having a third impedance, the third impedance being equal to a difference between the second impedance and the first impedance.
Sandhu teaches that implantation in body tissue changes the impedance of the Bluetooth antenna. In particular, Sandhu teaches that when the medical device is implanted in the lossy tissue of the human body, “both the real and the imaginary parts of the complex antenna impedance” are reduced. See para [0039]. Sandhu further teaches that an external lumped matching network is typically used to match the implant antenna to 50 ohms. See para [0040]. Thus, Sandhu teaches an implanted Bluetooth antenna having an implanted-state impedance and a matching network coupled to the antenna.
Larson teaches a module / transceiver having an impedance different from the antenna impedance, and teaches a matching circuit positioned between the transceiver and the antenna to reduce that impedance difference. In particular, Larson teaches that matching networks are used to match a transceiver’s impedance to an antenna’s impedance and that the matching network helps provide maximum power transfer. See para [0004]. Larson further teaches that the antenna impedance in an implantable medical device varies depending upon the dielectric constant of the surrounding medium, including after implantation in the body. See para [0004]. Larson also teaches an implantable matching network between transceiver 102 and antenna 104, and teaches detecting an impedance mismatch and adjusting the matching circuit to decrease the impedance mismatch and increase or maximize communication power transfer. See para [0020]-[0023] and para [0032]-[0033]. Accordingly, Sandhu teaches the implanted Bluetooth antenna having a first impedance once positioned within a patient and teaches use of a matching network with that implanted antenna, while Larson teaches a transceiver / module having a different impedance and a matching circuit positioned between the transceiver and the antenna to compensate for the impedance mismatch and maximize communication power transfer.
Ruers in view of Sandhu and Larson does not expressly disclose, verbatim, that the matching circuit has a third impedance “equal to a difference” between the second impedance and the first impedance. However, Larson expressly teaches selecting and adjusting the matching-network impedance so as to decrease the impedance mismatch between the transceiver and the antenna and maximize communication power transfer, and Sandhu teaches that the implanted Bluetooth antenna impedance changes in body tissue and is then matched with a matching network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the impedance of the matching circuit in the Ruers / Sandhu arrangement so that it provides the impedance transformation needed to compensate for the difference between the Bluetooth module impedance and the implanted Bluetooth antenna impedance, i.e., to bridge that difference and thereby maximize communication power transfer in the implanted condition. Doing so would have predictably improved Bluetooth communication efficiency and reliability for the implantable device when operating in body tissue.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruers et al. (US 2024/0090953 A1) in view of Barror et al. (US 2010/0168818 A1).Top of Form
Per claim 21, Ruers teaches a system comprising: an external device configured to be positioned external to a body of a patient because Ruers teaches an auxiliary device / nearby device that communicates with the implantable probe from outside the patient’s body. See para [0066], para [0071], and para [0102]-[0103]. Ruers further teaches an implantable device comprising a flexible circuit including a substrate having a first broad side and a second broad side opposite the first broad side along a thickness of the substrate because Ruers teaches an implantable probe and teaches a flex circuit / flexible PCB / flexible board arrangement for the probe. See para [0021] and para [0087]-[0089]. A flexible board / flexible PCB necessarily has opposite broad sides across its thickness. Ruers further teaches the substrate carrying an implantable Bluetooth antenna because Ruers teaches that implantable probe 100 includes antenna 104 and expressly teaches that antenna 104 may use low-power Bluetooth. See para [0066].
However, Ruers does not expressly teach the remaining portion of claim 21, namely, the implantable Bluetooth antenna located closer to the first broad side than the second broad side along the thickness of the substrate, wherein the implantable device is configured to be positioned within the body of the patient such that the first broad side is located closer to the external Bluetooth antenna than the second broad side.
Barror teaches that missing portion. In particular, Barror teaches that IMD 10 includes “an antenna 22 arranged on an exterior of housing 14” and that antenna 22 can be “positioned at a location on exterior of the housing 14 and spaced apart a desired distance from housing 14 to achieve a desirable radiation efficiency.” See para [0022]-[0024] and para [0026]. Barror further teaches that placing the antenna outside the conductive housing improves far-field telemetry performance by reducing the shielding effect of the housing. See para [0023] and para [0026]. Thus, Barror teaches positioning the implant antenna toward an outward-facing side of the implant structure so that the antenna side is closer to the external telemetry environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ruers implant so that antenna 104 is positioned closer to one broad side of the flexible substrate, and to orient the implant within the patient so that that antenna-carrying side faces the external device, in view of Barror’s teaching that outward placement of the implant antenna improves radiation efficiency and telemetry performance. Doing so would have predictably improved wireless coupling between the implantable Bluetooth antenna and the external device, reduced attenuation through intervening implant structure, and improved telemetry reliability.
Per claim 22, Ruers teaches a method comprising positioning an external device proximate to a body of a patient because Ruers teaches a nearby / auxiliary device that communicates with the implantable probe from outside the patient’s body. See para [0066], para [0071], and para [0102]-[0103]. Ruers further teaches implanting an implantable device within the body of the patient because Ruers teaches an implantable probe 100 / 908 configured for implantation in the patient. See para [0008], para [0059], and para [0120]. Ruers further teaches the implantable device comprising a flexible circuit including a substrate having a first broad side and a second broad side opposite the first broad side along a thickness of the substrate because Ruers teaches a flex circuit / flexible PCB / flexible board arrangement for the implantable probe. See para [0021] and para [0087]-[0089]. A flexible board / flexible PCB necessarily has opposite broad sides across its thickness. Ruers further teaches the substrate carrying an implantable Bluetooth antenna because Ruers teaches that implantable probe 100 includes antenna 104 and expressly teaches that antenna 104 may use low-power Bluetooth. See para [0066].
However, Ruers does not expressly teach the remaining portion of claim 22, namely, wherein the implanting comprises implanting the implantable device such that the first broad side is located closer to the external Bluetooth antenna than the second broad side.
Barror teaches that missing portion. In particular, Barror teaches that IMD 10 includes “an antenna 22 arranged on an exterior of housing 14” and that antenna 22 can be “positioned at a location on exterior of the housing 14 and spaced apart a desired distance from housing 14 to achieve a desirable radiation efficiency.” See para [0022]-[0024] and para [0026]. Barror further teaches that placing the antenna outside the conductive housing improves far-field telemetry performance by reducing the shielding effect of the housing. See para [0023] and para [0026]. Thus, Barror teaches positioning the implant antenna toward an outward-facing side of the implant structure so that the antenna-carrying side is closer to the external telemetry environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implant the Ruers device such that the broad side of the flexible substrate carrying antenna 104 is positioned closer to the external Bluetooth antenna, in view of Barror’s teaching that outward placement of the implant antenna improves radiation efficiency and telemetry performance. Doing so would have predictably improved wireless coupling between the implantable Bluetooth antenna and the external device, reduced attenuation through intervening implant structure, and improved telemetry reliability.
Bottom of Form
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (US 2023/0352813) antenna structure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights