39DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on three applications filed in Germany on 25 August 2021, 17 September 2021, and 18 October 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the German applications (10 2021 209 355.8, 10 2021 210 373.1, and 10 2021 126 954.7 ) as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 1 – 20 were amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 1 starts with “Electronic implant”, which should be “An e Electronic implant “, to preserve antecedent basis through the claims. Claim 1 also includes the limitation “an electrode portion that is, according to its intended purpose, to be attached to or to be arranged at a body portion”, where “according to its intended purpose” is unnecessary added text that should be removed. Appropriate correct is required.
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 18 includes the phrase “in comprising a voltage pulse”, which should read “comprising a voltage pulse”. Claim 19 includes the term “alternat-ing magnetic field”, which should read “alternating magnetic field”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 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. The claim includes the element/step “wherein the energy storage completely surrounds the coil axis”. It is unclear how the axis of a coil is “surrounded” by an element, as an axis is a mathematical line drawn through a circular object. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “the energy storage is oriented parallel to the axis of the coil”.
Claim 13 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. The claim includes “wherein the core and/or the field collector and/or the further field collector is/are formed from a material with a high relative magnetic permeability and/or a saturation flux density that is as high as possible.” The repeated use of “and/or” creates confusion as to the exact metes and bounds of the invention as claimed.
Further, the term “as high as possible” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as high as possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “the core, the field collector, and the further field collector are formed from a material with a high relative magnetic permeability”.
Claim 14 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. The claim includes “wherein the core and/or the field collector and/or the further field collector has/have a structure formed of a plurality of individual thin layers, and the material of these layers has a high relative magnetic permeability and/or a high saturation flux density, and is an amorphous metal”. The repeated use of “and/or” and “has/have” creates confusion as to the exact metes and bounds of the invention as claimed.
Further, the term “a high saturation flux density” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “wherein the core and the field collector and the further field collector have a structure formed of a plurality of individual thin layers, and the material of these layers has a high relative magnetic permeability”.
Claim 15 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. The claim includes “the solid material”. There is no antecedent basis for this element.
Claim 17 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. The claim includes “the core and/or the field collector and/or the further field collector is/are formed of a material having a high saturation flux density, and the geometry of the core and/or of the field collector and/or of the further field collector is selected such that a flux density BC, which results in the core of the coil from the multiplied flux density reduced by an opposing field generated by the charging (alternating) current, is in the range of the saturation flux density”. The repeated use of “and/or” creates confusion as to the exact metes and bounds of the invention as claimed. For the purposes of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as “wherein the core and the field collector and the further field collector have a structure formed of a plurality of individual thin layers, and the material of these layers has a high relative magnetic permeability”.
Further, the terms “high saturation flux density” and “in the range of” in claim 17 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “in the range of” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets this as ““the core and the field collector and the further field collector are formed of a material having a saturation flux density, and the geometry of the core and of the field collector and of the further field collector is selected such that a flux density BC, which results in the core of the coil from the multiplied flux density reduced by an opposing field generated by the charging (alternating) current, is within 10% of the saturation flux density”
Claim 20 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. The claim includes the limitation “are dimensioned in such a way that the coil and the resonant capacitor are in resonance”. “in such a way” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in such a way” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisker et al., US 2009/0024180 (hereinafter 'Kisker') in view of Hastings et al., US 2006/0085042 (hereinafter 'Hastings')
.
Regarding claim 1: Kisker teaches an electronic implant for implantation into a body of a living being and for monitoring a bodily function, comprising a pacemaker for monitoring and controlling the bodily function ([0044, 0050; Fig 1]; discloses a cardiac pacemaker that receives heart information such as ECG signals, and that can operate as a defibrillator), the implant comprising:
an electrode portion that is to be attached to or to be arranged at a body portion ([0052; Fig 3]: discloses electrodes 12 that are attached to the heart muscle);
an electronics assembly connected to the electrode portion, which is configured to monitor at least the bodily function via the electrode portion ([0046, 0050; Fig 2]: disclose a control device 2 that uses “electrodes, not shown, can also be connected directly to the control device 2, in particular to detect ECG signals or the like”);
an energy storage to supply the electronics assembly with electrical energy which can be recharged with electrical energy after discharge ([0049; Fig 2]: discloses “a energy storage device 9 such as a rechargeable battery”); and
an energy receiving portion electrically connected to the energy storage, which is configured so as to be able to receive energy without contact and to deliver the energy to the energy storage for recharging the energy storage ([0051]: discloses inductively recharging the battery using a magnetic field applied to the coil 7);
wherein the energy receiving portion comprises:
a coil extending along a coil axis and being configured to receive the energy and to deliver the energy to the energy storage when passed through by an external alternating magnetic field ([0102, 0105, -136; Fig 10]: discloses an external charging device 24 that compromises a coil 27, that inductively charges the battery 9 via coil 7 in the pacemaker 1, ad the use of a “flux concentrator”)).
Kisker is silent with respect to
a core, which is located in the coil and extends along the coil axis, and at least one field collector, which is located at one end of the core in the direction of the coil axis and has larger dimensions transverse to the coil axis than the core.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hastings, Fig 18A – 18C
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes
a core, which is located in the coil and extends along the coil axis, and at least one field collector, which is located at one end of the core in the direction of the coil axis and has larger dimensions transverse to the coil axis than the core ([0051, 0163, 0164; Fig 18B]: discloses a “seed” that gathers energy via “a ferrite core having caps at each end with ring electrodes encircling the caps, so as to form a dumbbell-shaped configuration”, including a ferrite core 1805 with a pair of caps 1810 attached to the end of the ferrite core, which are interpreted as “”field collectors”. The coil is disclosed as a “long loop of wire 1820” that is wound around the core 1805.).
Hastings teaches the use of these “seeds” in lieu of a battery in areas where a “very small form factor” is required ([0167]). However, Hastings also teaches the use of rechargeable batteries using an inductively coupled antenna (([0158]) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 2: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
the field collector is a part of the core, being monolithic with the core and is formed from the same material.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes
the field collector is a part of the core, being monolithic with the core and is formed from the same material ([0163]: discloses that the caps 1810, interpreted as “field collectors”, “may be integrally formed with the core 1805”, and therefore monolithic with the core and formed from the same material, as best understood by the examiner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 3: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to further comprising:
a further field collector, which is located in the direction of the coil axis at another end of the core and has larger dimensions transverse to the coil axis than the core.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes
a further field collector, which is located in the direction of the coil axis at another end of the core and has larger dimensions transverse to the coil axis than the core ([0163]: discloses that the caps 1810, interpreted as a “field collector” and a “further field collector”, have a larger diameter than the core, and “may be integrally formed with the core 1805”, and therefore monolithic with the core and formed from the same material, as best understood by the examiner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 4: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 3, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
the further field collectors is a part of the core, being monolithic with the core and is formed from the same material.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes
the further field collectors is a part of the core, being monolithic with the core and is formed from the same material ([0163]: discloses that the caps 1810, interpreted as “field collectors”, “may be integrally formed with the core 1805”, and therefore being monolithic with the core and formed from the same material, as best understood by the examiner).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 5: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
the field collector and/or the further field collector is a separate element from the core and is formed from a different material.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes wherein
the field collector and/or the further field collector is a separate element from the core and is formed from a different material. ([0163]: discloses that the caps 1810, interpreted as a “field collector” and a “further field collector”, may be separate elements that are attached to the end of the core 1805. As the collectors are separate elements attached to the core, the examiner interprets that these collectors could be formed from different materials as an routine optimization step.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 6: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
the energy storage comprises at least an energy storage unit and at least a further energy storage unit (Kisker: [0137]: discloses a power supply comprising a plurality of batteries, where the first of the batteries is interpreted as equivalent to an energy storage unit, and the second of the plurality of batteries is interpreted as equivalent to a further energy storage unit); and
the energy storage unit and the further energy storage unit is/are arranged in the direction of the coil axis relative to the core (Kisker: [0049; Fig 2]: discloses a rechargeable battery 9 oriented parallel to the coil 7)
Regarding claim 7: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 5, as discussed above, wherein
the energy storage comprises at least an energy storage unit and at least a further energy storage unit (Kisker: [0137]: discloses a power supply comprising a plurality of batteries, where the first of the batteries is interpreted as equivalent to an energy storage unit, and the second of the plurality of batteries is interpreted as equivalent to a further energy storage unit).
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
the energy storage unit and the further energy storage unit each have a housing which acts as the field collector and/or the further field collector.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes wherein
the energy storage unit and the further energy storage unit each have a housing which acts as the field collector and/or the further field collector ([0068, 0163]: discloses a “seed” that includes a micro-battery contained within the seed, and a hermetic epoxy layer 1825/1830 formed around the seed, interpreted as a housing for the seed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 8: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the energy storage comprises at least an energy storage unit and at least a further energy storage unit, and the field collector and the further field collector has/have a recess in which the energy storage unit and the further energy storage unit is/are accommodated (Kisker: [0049, 0137, Fig 2]: discloses a power supply comprising a plurality of batteries, where the first of the batteries is interpreted as equivalent to an energy storage unit, and the second of the plurality of batteries is interpreted as equivalent to a further energy storage unit, and the power supply 9 is illustrated as within control device 2).
Regarding claim 9: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 3, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
the coil is wound on and around the core between the field collector and the further field collector.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes
the coil is wound on and around the core between the field collector and the further field collector ([0051, 0163, 0164; Fig 18B]: discloses “a dumbbell-shaped configuration”, including a ferrite core 1805 with a pair of caps 1810 attached to the end of the ferrite core, which are interpreted as “”field collectors”. The coil is disclosed as a “long loop of wire 1820” that is wound around the core 1805.).
Hastings teaches the use of these “seeds” in lieu of a battery in areas where a “very small form factor” is required ([0167]). However, Hastings also teaches the use of rechargeable batteries using an inductively coupled antenna (([0158]) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the use of a “small and simple” antenna element to “facilitate implantation, lower costs, and improve manufacturability and reliability” of the pacemaker.
Regarding claim 10: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
the energy storage comprises at least an energy storage unit and at least a further energy storage unit (Kisker: [0137]: discloses a power supply comprising a plurality of batteries, where the first of the batteries is interpreted as equivalent to an energy storage unit, and the second of the plurality of batteries is interpreted as equivalent to a further energy storage unit;); and
the energy storage unit and the further energy storage unit(s) is/are arranged radially to the coil axis at least in portions around the coil (Kisker: [0049; Fig 2]: The power supply 9 is illustrated as within control device 2, and along the same axis as the coil 7).
Regarding claim 11: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 10, as discussed above, wherein the energy storage completely surrounds the coil axis (Kisker: [0049; Fig 2]: The power supply 9 is illustrated as within control device 2, and along the same axis as the coil 7, which as best understood by the Examiner is parallel to the axis of the coil).
Regarding claim 12: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 10, as discussed above, wherein the energy storage unit is arranged radially to the coil axis around the coil (Kisker: [0049; Fig 2]: The power supply 9 is illustrated as within control device 2, and along the same axis as the coil 7, which as best understood by the Examiner is parallel to the axis of the coil).
Regarding claim 13: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the core and/or the field collector and/or the further field collector is/are formed from a material with a high relative magnetic permeability and/or a saturation flux density that is as high as possible (Kisker: [0119, 0120]: discloses optimization of the coil 7 and the electrode device 3 to optimize the energy consumption of the pacing system, using experimentally determined parameters) .
Regarding claim 14: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the core and/or the field collector and/or the further field collector has/have a structure formed of a plurality of individual thin layers, and the material of these layers has a high relative magnetic permeability and/or a high saturation flux density, and is an amorphous metal (Kisker: [0062 – 0064]: discloses a layered arrangement of soft magnetic and hard magnetic materials to form the coil core 16).
Regarding claim 15: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 14, as discussed above, wherein the core has the structure with the thin layers (Kisker: [0062 – 0064]: discloses a layered arrangement of soft magnetic and hard magnetic materials to form the coil core 16).
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
the field collector and the further field collector are an element separate from the core and are formed from a different material, and the field collector and the further field collector are formed from the solid material.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes wherein
the field collector and/or the further field collector are an element separate from the core and are formed from a different material ([0163]: discloses that the caps 1810, interpreted as a “field collector” and a “further field collector”, may be separate elements that are attached to the end of the core 1805. As the collectors are separate elements attached to the core, the examiner interprets that these collectors could be formed from different materials as an routine optimization step.), and
and the field collector and the further field collector are formed from the solid material (the Examiner notes that there is no antecedent basis for this claim element).
PNG
media_image2.png
134
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kisker, Fig. 10
Regarding claim 16: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the energy receiving portion comprises at least one rectifier and at least one capacitor located between the coil and the energy storage, and the coil transfers the received energy to the energy storage via the rectifier and the capacitor (Kisker: [0112, 0013]: discloses an electrode device 3 that comprises a rectifier with four Schottky diodes and a capacitor to supply power inductively from a waveform received by coil device 10).
Regarding claim 17: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
for recharging the energy storage, the alternating magnetic field with a flux density is to be generated as intended in the area of the implanted implant, as a result of which a corresponding charging voltage is induced in the coil, which leads to a charging current emitted by the coil and supplied directly or indirectly to the energy storage (Kisker: [0051, 0136]:discloses using magnetic field H to inductively recharge the implanted device, and the use of a “flux concentrator” to direct the magnetic field).
Kisker is silent with respect to
the core and/or the field collector and/or the further field collector is/are formed of a material having a high saturation flux density, and
the geometry of the core and/or of the field collector and/or of the further field collector is selected such that a flux density BC, which results in the core of the coil from the multiplied flux density *reduced by an opposing field generated by the charging (alternating) current, is in the range of the saturation flux density.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes selecting the parameters of the coil, including frequency of the alternating field along with the resonant frequency of the inductive circuit to maximize the quality factor “Q” of the energy transfer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings in order to optimize the power transfer from a transmitter to the inductively charged implanted device, and avoid unnecessary energy losses.
Regarding claim 18: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the Electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein
the implant is an electronic pacemaker, comprising a cardiac pacemaker (Kisker: [0044, 0045; Fig 1]: discloses an implantable cardiac pacemaker), and
the electronics assembly connected to the electrode portion is configured to monitor the bodily function via the electrode portion and to generate a pulse, in comprising a voltage pulse, and to emit this via the electrode portion to the body portion for controlling the bodily function, and to measure, store and transmit further body data (Kisker: [0050]: discloses that the control device 2 can “receive or take up the required heart information” in order to generate “electrical impulses by the electrode device 3 to stimulate the heart 6”. US Patent 5,411,535, which is incorporated by reference, teaches the storage and retrieval of cardiac data [col 7; lines 24 – 55]).
Regarding claim 19: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the Electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
an average magnetic flux of 0.2*10-6 to 36*10-6 Vs (Weber) is established in the core when using the alternating magnetic field with a flux density B0 of 0.5mT to 30mT.
Hasting teaches a procedure for calculating the energy coupling efficiency of the inductive energy transfer ([0147 – 0155]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings to enable the desired magnetic flux as a matter of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 20: Kisker in view of Hastings teaches the Electronic implant according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Kisker is silent with respect to wherein
an alternating current resistance (wL) of the coil resulting from the inductance of the coil and the frequency of the external alternating magnetic field exceeds the ohmic resistance of the coil, the electronics have a resonant capacitor, and AC resistance and ohmic resistance for the alternating magnetic field to be used as intended are dimensioned in such a way that the coil and the resonant capacitor are in resonance.
Hastings teaches ([0049, 0059, 0065; Fig 2B]) a pacemaker 290 with inductive charging of an internal battery and a number of “seed” electrodes) that includes selecting the parameters of the coil, including frequency of the alternating field along with the resonant frequency of the inductive circuit to maximize the quality factor “Q” of the energy transfer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Kisker in view of Hastings in order to optimize the power transfer from a transmitter to the inductively charged implanted device, and avoid unnecessary energy losses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent A Fairbanks whose telephone number is (408)918-7532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5:30PM PDT.
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, Brent A Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights