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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 lines 1-2 “wherein the first structure positioned opposite the second structure” is suggested to read “wherein the first structure is positioned opposite the second structure” for better grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 15, 19-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wemeth et al. (WO 2019/136218; see IDS), hereinafter known as “Wemeth.”
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 (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).
With regards to claim 2, Wemeth 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 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 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 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 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 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 15, Wemeth 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 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 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, Wemeth discloses wherein the sensor 150 comprises at least one of a pressure sensor (paragraph 114).
With regards to claim 24, Wemeth 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).
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 4 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Rangwala et al. (US PGPub 2022/0110710), hereinafter known as “Rangwala.”
With regards to claim 4, Wemeth discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 3. Wemeth 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 discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. Wemeth 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 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 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, 9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Schugt et al. (US PGPub 2013/0085350), hereinafter known as “Schugt.”
With regards to claims 6, 9, and 22, Wemeth discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 3 and claim 1. Wemeth 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 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 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Schugt, and further in view of Dang et al. (US PGPub 2021/0401418), hereinafter known as “Dang.”
With regards to claim 7, Wemeth/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/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 Landherr et al. (US PGPub 2017/0065207), hereinafter known as “Landherr.”
With regards to claim 8, Wemeth discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. Wemeth 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 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).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Unser (US PGPub 2019/0046212).
With regards to claim 13, Wemeth discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. Wemeth further discloses wherein, subsequent to being inserted into the cranial aneurysm, the antenna 175 is positioned outside of a structure formed by the plurality of coils 140 (paragraph 116 – antenna 175 is positioned within the delivery device 500 and is proximal to the coils 140 due to the coils 140 being deployed first). Wemeth is silent wherein the sensor and the communication circuitry are 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 and the communication circuitry (paragraphs 46-47 – onboard circuitry) are 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 to include wherein the sensor and the communication circuitry are 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 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”).
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wemeth in view of Dang.
With regards to claim 23, Wemeth discloses the implantable system as claimed in claim 1. Wemeth is silent wherein the antenna comprises or is coated with a material that inhibits clotting of blood (claim 23).
However, in a similar field of endeavor of antenna structures with medical devices, Dang 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 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.
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 01/21/2026
/TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771