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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14-24 and 65 remain pending in the application; and claims 13 and 25-64 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection and the interpretation of the prior art rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 05/14/2026, however a new rejection is applied as outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 65 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous interpretation of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Arguments directed to the claims as amended are addressed in the body of the rejection below.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that Wemeth is directed to the treatment of a left atrial appendage, and would not be suitable for the treatment of a cranial aneurysm and the placement of a sensor within said aneurysm. The Office respectfully disagrees. The system is “for treating a cranial aneurysm” therefore the limitation is functional and not necessarily required by the prior art to positively disclose. In any event, Wemeth does disclose in paragraphs 147 and 208 that the anchors 140 “can comprise one or more coils of similar construction and arrangement to treat an aneurysm, such as a brain aneurysm.” Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites “wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a blood flow sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a metabolic sensor, a glucose sensor, an oxygen sensor, or a pressure sensor” in lines 1-3 and is unclear how the sensor can comprise at least one of a blood flow sensor, a blood pressure sensor, an oxygen sensor, or a pressure sensor when claim 1 recites that the sensor is a glucose sensor or a metabolic sensor. If claim 21 were to recite that the sensor comprises at least a metabolic sensor or a glucose sensor, then the claim would recite what is already recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the claim to mean “wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a metabolic sensor or a glucose sensor,” essentially repeating what is already recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14-15, 19-21, 23-24, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth et al. (WO 2019/136218; see IDS) in view of Dang et al. (WO 2020/185389), and further in view of Unser (US PGPub 2019/0046212), hereinafter known as “Wemeth,” “Dang,” and “Unser,” respectively.
With regards to claim 1, Wemeth discloses (Figures 1 and 3) an implantable system 100 for treating a cranial aneurysm (paragraphs 147 and 208 – brain aneurysm), the system 100 comprising:
a plurality of coils 140 configured to be positioned within the cranial aneurysm to cause an occlusion of a flow of blood in the cranial aneurysm (figure 3; paragraphs 146-147 and 208);
a sensor 150 configured to be positioned within the cranial aneurysm and further configured to detect a property of the flow of blood in the cranial aneurysm (figure 3; paragraphs 114 and 131-132);
a communication circuitry 172/173/174 configured to be positioned within the cranial aneurysm, the communication circuitry 172/173/174 connected to the sensor 150 (figure 3) and configured to transmit data related to the property of the flow of blood detected by the sensor 150 (functional limitation – paragraph 115 – circuitry is capable of transmitting data related to the property of the flow of blood detected by the sensor since the circuitry stores, processes, and analyzes data); and
an antenna 175 configured to be positioned within the cranial aneurysm (figure 3), the antenna 175 connected to the communication circuitry 172/173/174 (figure 1) and further configured to facilitate transmission of the data related to the property of the flow of blood detected by the sensor 150 (paragraph 115),
wherein, subsequent to being inserted into the cranial aneurysm, the antenna 175 is at least partially positioned outside of a structure formed by the plurality of coils 140 (figure 3 - antenna 175 is positioned outside of the structure formed by the plurality of coils 140 within the aneurysm; additionally paragraph 116 discloses “implant 100 is configured to be recaptured… after implantation (e.g. after deployment from delivery device 500). In these embodiments, implant 100 can be configured to be folded or otherwise radially compressed for recapture” and thus reads on the “subsequent to being inserted into the cranial aneurysm” limitation).
Wemeth is silent wherein the sensor is a glucose sensor or metabolic sensor.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of treating aneurysms, Dang teaches wherein the sensor 120 is a glucose sensor (paragraphs 47 and 66).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor of Wemeth to be a glucose sensor as taught by Dang for the purpose of measuring physiological parameters and addressing the stroke risk for patients (paragraph 44 of Dang).
Wemeth/Dang are silent wherein the sensor is positioned at least partially inside the structure formed by the plurality of coils.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of treating aneurysms, Unser teaches (Figures 1-4) wherein the sensor 130 is positioned at least partially inside the structure 210 formed by the plurality of coils 210 (figure 4; paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the implantable system of Wemeth/Dang to include wherein the sensor is positioned at least partially inside the structure formed by the plurality of coils as taught by Unser for the purpose of more accurately calculating the blood flow within the aneurysm.
With regards to claim 2, Wemeth further discloses wherein the plurality of coils 140, the sensor 150, the communication circuitry 172/173/174, and the antenna 175 are configured to be loaded into a catheter and inserted into the cranial aneurysm using the catheter (functional limitation – paragraph 116).
With regards to claim 3, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 is configured to compress into a first shape to be loaded into the catheter, and wherein the antenna 175 is configured to expand into a second shape subsequent to being released from the catheter (functional limitation – paragraph 116).
With regards to claim 5, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 in the second shape forms a substantially semi-spherical structure that facilitates occlusion of the flow of blood (paragraph 116 – the second shape is functionally recited (claim 3) and therefore the antenna 175 is capable of forming the second shape of a substantially semi-spherical structure since “One or more portions of implant 100 can be configured to unfold and/or otherwise expand during and/or after deployment”).
With regards to claim 10, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 is connected to the plurality of coils 140 such that the plurality of coils 140 serves as a ground plane for the antenna 175 (paragraph 150 – coils 140 are connected to the antenna 175 via the ring 110, coils 140 serve as an anchor, or a ground plane).
With regards to claim 11, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 is connected to the plurality of coils 140 through a single electrical connection 110 (paragraph 150 – “Anchors 140 can be attached at one or more locations of ring 110”; paragraph 135 – ring 110 delivers electric energy; paragraph 184 – ring 110 is electrical).
With regards to claim 12, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 is connected to the plurality of coils 140 through a plurality of electrical connections (paragraph 150 – “Anchors 140 can be attached at one or more locations of ring 110”; paragraph 135 – ring 110 delivers electric energy; paragraph 184 – ring 110 is electrical).
With regards to claim 14, Wemeth further discloses wherein the plurality of coils 140 are configured to form a substantially spherical shape when positioned within the cranial aneurysm (paragraph 116 – the substantially spherical shape is functionally recited and therefore the plurality of coils 140 are capable of forming the substantially spherical shape since “One or more portions of implant 100 can be configured to unfold and/or otherwise expand during and/or after deployment”).
With regards to claim 15, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175, in an expanded configuration, is configured to form a substantially semi-spherical structure that facilitates occlusion of the flow of blood (functional limitation – paragraph 116 - the substantially semi-spherical structure is functionally recited and therefore the antenna 175 is capable of forming the substantially semi-spherical structure since “One or more portions of implant 100 can be configured to unfold and/or otherwise expand during and/or after deployment”).
With regards to claim 19, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 is configured to transmit in a frequency range between 2400 MHz and 2483.5 MHz (functional limitation – paragraph 115 – antenna transmits data and power and thus is capable of transmitting in a frequency range between 2400 MHz and 2483.5 MHz).
With regards to claim 20, Wemeth further discloses wherein the antenna 175 is configured to transmit and receive data over a distance of at least 12 centimeters (functional limitation – paragraph 115 – antenna transmits and receives data and power and thus is capable of transmitting and receiving data over a distance of at least 12 cm).
With regards to claim 21, the combination of Wemeth/Dang/Unser disclose wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a glucose sensor (paragraphs 47 and 66 of Dang).
With regards to claim 23, the combination discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. The combination is silent wherein the antenna comprises or is coated with a material that inhibits clotting of blood.
However, Dang further teaches (Figure 4) wherein the antenna comprises or is coated with a material that inhibits clotting of blood (paragraphs 109 and 115 – gold; gold is a material that inhibits clotting of blood).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the antenna of Wemeth/Dang/Unser to comprise a material that inhibits clotting of blood as taught by Dang for the purpose of providing a material of strength, hardness, and corrosion resistance.
With regards to claim 24, Wemeth further discloses further comprising a receiver 200 configured to receive the data related to the property of blood flow detected by the sensor 150, wherein the receiver 200 is configured to be supported by an article of clothing worn by a user in the upper torso or head (functional limitation – figure 22 and paragraphs 221-222 – receiver 200 is capable of being a fitness tracker and thus is capable of being worn by a user in the upper torso or head).
With regards to claim 65, the combination discloses the system as claimed in claim 1. The combination is silent wherein, within the aneurysm, the antenna is further configured to overlie the structure formed by the plurality of coils and conform to a wall of the aneurysm to provide a radial outward force to the wall.
However, Dang further teaches in figure 3 wherein, within the aneurysm, the antenna 395 is further configured to overlie the structure formed by the occlusion device 307/310 and conform to a wall of the aneurysm to provide a radial outward force to the wall (paragraph 97 – “one or more antennas, transmission lines, coils, wires, or the like can be integrated with a structure of the occlusion device, such as a framework of the device 310”; paragraphs 13, 19, and 24 disclose the frame being expandable; functional limitation – conforming to a wall of the aneurysm to provide a radial outward force to the wall is functionally recited and therefore the antenna 395 is capable of conforming to a wall of the aneurysm to provide a radial outward force to the wall since the antenna is integrated with the expandable framework).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wemeth/Dang/Unser to include wherein, within the aneurysm, the antenna is further configured to overlie the structure formed by the plurality of coils and conform to a wall of the aneurysm to provide a radial outward force to the wall as taught by figure 3 of Dang for the purpose of providing a power transmitter used for power storage between charging (paragraph 50 of Dang).
Claims 4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Dang in view of Unser, and further in view of Rangwala et al. (US PGPub 2022/0110710), hereinafter known as “Rangwala.”
With regards to claim 4, Wemeth/Dang/Unser disclose the implantable system as claimed in claim 3. The combination is silent wherein the antenna comprises a plurality of interconnected segments.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of antenna structures with medical devices, Rangwala teaches (Figures 5-6) wherein the antenna 120 comprises a plurality of interconnected segments 122/124 (paragraphs 63-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the antenna of Wemeth for the antenna of Rangwala. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Wemeth does not teach a plurality of interconnected segments. Rangwala teaches (see Figs. 5-6) a similar device comprising an antenna. Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that the antenna of Wemeth and the antenna of Rangwala are elements that are functional equivalents for providing transmission of data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the antenna taught by Rangwala for the antenna of Wemeth because both elements were known equivalents for providing and would have resulted in the predictable results of providing transmission of data.
With regards to claims 16-18, Wemeth/Dang/Unser disclose the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. The combination is silent wherein the antenna comprises first and second antennas configured to communicate in different frequency bands (claim 16); wherein the first antenna, in an expanded configuration, is configured to form a first substantially semi-spherical structure that contours to one or more walls of the cranial aneurysm, and wherein the second antenna, in an expanded configuration, is configured to form a second substantially semi-spherical structure that facilitates occlusion of the flow of blood (claim 17); and wherein the first structure is positioned opposite the second structure when the first and second antennas are in the expanded configuration (claim 18).
However, in a similar field of endeavor of antenna structures with medical devices, Rangwala teaches (Figures 12-13) wherein the antenna 202 comprises first 202A and second 202B antennas configured to communicate in different frequency bands (functional limitation – paragraphs 82-85 – “may be desirable to measure compression of both the proximal half of the occlusion device and the distal half of the occlusion device” – thus is capable of communicating in different frequency bands to measure the proximal or distal half);
wherein the first antenna 202A, in an expanded configuration (figure 12), is configured to form a first substantially semi-spherical structure that contours to one or more walls of the cranial aneurysm (figure 12 – functional limitation – 202A is capable of contouring to one or more walls of the aneurysm), and wherein the second antenna 202B, in an expanded configuration (figure 12), is configured to form a second substantially semi-spherical structure that facilitates occlusion of the flow of blood (figure 12 – functional limitation – 202B is capable of forming a substantially semi-spherical structure); and
wherein the first structure 202A is positioned opposite the second structure 202B when the first 202A and second 202B antennas are in the expanded configuration (figure 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the antenna of Wemeth for the antenna of Rangwala. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Wemeth does not teach a first and second antenna. Rangwala teaches (see Figs. 12-13) a similar device comprising a first and second antenna. Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that the antenna of Wemeth and the antenna of Rangwala are elements that are functional equivalents for providing transmission of data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the first and second antenna taught by Rangwala for the antenna of Wemeth because both elements were known equivalents for providing and would have resulted in the predictable results of providing transmission of data.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Dang in view of Unser, and further in view of Schugt et al. (US PGPub 2013/0085350), hereinafter known as “Schugt.”
With regards to claims 6, 9, and 22, Wemeth/Dang/Unser disclose the implantable system as claimed in claim 3 and claim 1. The combination is silent wherein the antenna comprises first and second materials, the first material configured to facilitate compression of the antenna into the first shape and expansion of the antenna into the second shape, and the second material configured to facilitate the transmission (claim 6); wherein the antenna comprises a planar inverted-F antenna (PIFA) (claim 9); and wherein the antenna comprises or is coated with a material that promotes clotting of blood (claim 22).
However, in a similar field of endeavor of antenna structures with medical devices, Schugt teaches (Figure 3) wherein the antenna 24/38A-38J (paragraph 52) comprises first and second materials (paragraph 51), the first material configured to facilitate compression of the antenna 24 into the first shape and expansion of the antenna into the second shape (functional limitation – paragraph 51 – “Nitinol”), and the second material configured to facilitate the transmission (functional limitation – paragraph 51 – conductive materials facilitate transmission);
wherein the antenna 24 comprises a planar inverted-F antenna (PIFA) (paragraph 34); and
wherein the antenna 24 comprises or is coated with a material that promotes clotting of blood (paragraph 51 – Nitinol is a material that promotes clotting of blood).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the antenna of Wemeth/Dang/Unser to include wherein the antenna comprises first and second materials; and wherein the antenna comprises or is coated with a material that promotes clotting of blood as taught by Schugt for the purpose of providing a conductive path of the antenna that is specifically designed to obtain a particular radiation pattern (paragraph 51 of Schugt).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the antenna of Wemeth/Dang/Unser to include wherein the antenna comprises a planar inverted-F antenna as taught by Schugt for the purpose of utilizing a ground or shorting pin that allows the impedance of the antenna to be selected for desired frequencies or otherwise tuned as needed (paragraph 34 of Schugt).
With regards to claim 7, Wemeth/Dang/Unser/Schugt disclose the implantable system as claimed in claim 6. Schugt further discloses wherein the first material comprises a shape memory alloy (paragraph 51 – Nitinol). The combination is silent to the second material comprises one or more of platinum, platinum and iridium alloy, or gold.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of antenna structures with medical devices, Dang teaches (Figure 4) the second material (of the coil antenna) comprises one or more of platinum, platinum and iridium alloy, or gold (paragraphs 109 and 115).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second material of the antenna of Wemeth/Dang/Unser/Schugt to comprise one or more of platinum, platinum and iridium alloy, or gold as taught by Dang for the purpose of providing a material of strength, hardness, and corrosion resistance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Dang in view of Unser, and further in view of Landherr et al. (US PGPub 2017/0065207), hereinafter known as “Landherr.”
With regards to claim 8, Wemeth/Dang/Unser disclose the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. The combination is silent wherein the antenna comprises a flat monopole antenna.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of antenna structures with medical devices, Landherr teaches (Figures 3A-3B) wherein the antenna 302 comprises a flat monopole antenna (paragraphs 68-70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the antenna of Wemeth/Dang/Unser to include wherein the antenna comprises a flat monopole antenna as taught by Landherr for the purpose of allowing for increasing the directional broadcast of the antenna while decreasing interference that may result from integrated circuitry (paragraph 70 of Landherr).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ADAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/MOHAMMED S ADAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 08/14/2026
Prosecution Insights