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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (2020/0391023) in view of Prescott et al (11529212). Lee discloses the following claimed elements:
--A case including a base (e.g. fig. 16, element 104, etc.) and a cover (e.g. element 106, etc.) with the side wall and a weld securing the based and cover (e.g. para. 71, figure 16, right above where element 104 is pointing, etc.)
--a frame rotatable around a case central axis (e.g. fig. 18, element 116, para. 68, etc.)
--a plurality of magnets defining a longitudinal axis and N-S direction rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the frame (e.g. figure 17, element 110, para. 68, etc.), in a receptacle of the frame (e.g. element 118, etc.), and
--a ring (e.g. figure 17 or 18, element 124, etc.) having an outer surface (e.g. figure below from figure 17, text element Z) between the frame (e.g. element 116, figure 17, etc.) and the case side wall (e.g. figure below taken from figure 17, added element A) and offset from the case side wall (e.g. figure below, text element Z offset from side wall element A).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee also discloses the case having a cover welded to the base (e.g. para. 71, figure 16, line between cover and base, etc.) but does not disclose a first air gap between the internal component of the ring and the outer wall of the case, such as at a weld plane where the cover meets the base around the case. Prescott teaches that where welding is to occur on an implantable housing, there should be an air gap or air gap channel between the weld and the adjacent internal component so that the internal components/circuitry are thermally insulated and protected from overheating (e.g. col. 11, lines 32-55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Lee, with an air gap between the weld and internal component, such as around the entire ring where the welding occurs, as taught by Prescott, since it would provide the predictable results of thermally insulating the internal components/circuitry from overheating.
For claim 4, the case includes top and bottom curved wall sections (e.g. figure A pointing to area right below where top curved section starts, and corresponding curved section on the bottom) where the ring longitudinal ends (element 124, such as where Z is pointing) are in contact with the sections of the curved wall since they are in contact through the flat sections of the side wall which are in contact with the curved wall sections (i.e. the claim does not state it is in “direct contact” with the curved sections). For claim 9, Lee discloses a case of titanium (e.g. para. 71, 19.7 W/mk) and lower conductivity for a ring of PTFE (e.g. para. 77, around 0.35 W/mk). For claims 11-12, figure 46 and paragraph 92 teach the lead, antenna, processor and magnet assembly in a flexible housing.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Prescott (i.e. “modified Lee”) and further in view of Louwagie et al (2021/0196961). Modified Lee discloses the claimed invention with case, ring, frame and welding of the case, but does not disclose the use of the frame having two diametrically opposed pairs of flanges, each flange with curved free end in contact with the ring and second air gaps located between the flanges in a respective one of the flange pairs. Louwagie discloses the use of a frame with curved flanges diametrically opposed (e.g. figures 4 and 5, element 52, paras. 44-52, etc.) that contacts a ring (e.g. liner 51, etc.) that has pairs of open air voids/gaps (e.g. para. 52, etc.) to protect the circuitry and structure from heat when welding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by modified Lee, with the use of the frame having two diametrically opposed pairs of flanges, each flange with curved free end in contact with the ring and second air gaps located between the flanges in a respective one of the flange pairs, as taught by Louwagie, since it would provide the predictable results of protecting the circuitry and structure from heat when welding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19-23 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is (571)272-4945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/George R Evanisko/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 5/16/26
Prosecution Insights