DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 22 May 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informality.
Claims 19-20 contain minor typographical errors.
Claim 19, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The resonator of claim 18” to “The method of claim 18”.
Claim 20, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The resonator of claim 18” to “The method of claim 18”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1, 4-7, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuseth et al. (US 2017/0117739 A1) in view of Giordano et al. (US 2005/0288742 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Tuseth teaches a resonator for use in a transcutaneous energy transfer system (TETS) and a method of assembling a resonator for use in a transcutaneous energy transfer system (the implantable or intra-corporeal medical device 104 comprises a rechargeable power supply 120 (e.g., implantable receive resonator) consisting of a coil 111 that receives power wirelessly from the extra-corporeal power supply 150 (e.g., external transmitting resonator) [0006, 0033, 0080-0082]. The Examiner respectfully submits that this is a form of transcutaneous energy transfer, as the extra-corporeal power supply 150 (e.g., external transmitting resonator) supplies power to coil 111 of the rechargeable power supply 120 (e.g., implantable receive resonator) [0006, 0080-0082]) the resonator and method comprising:
a housing (the rechargeable power supply 120 (e.g., implantable receive resonator) consist of an implanted module 110 for wirelessly receiving power and a power storage module 112 [0033, 0080-0082]. Specifically, the rechargeable power supply 120 may be integrated within the housing of the intra-corporeal medical device 104 [0043, 0080-0082, 0090]);
a magnetic core positioned within the housing (the power storage means 112 of the rechargeable power supply 120 comprises a magnetic core material [0026, 0028-0029, 0080, 0128]. As stated previously above, the rechargeable power supply 120 may be integrated within the housing of the intra-corporeal medical device 104 [0043, 0080-0082, 0090]);
the magnetic core defining a central aperture (as stated previously above the power storage means 112 of the rechargeable power supply 120 comprises a magnetic core material [0026, 0028-0029, 0080, 0128]. However, the embodiment of figure 9 describes a power storage means 900 that may be used in the place of the implantable power storage means 112 [0128]. Specifically, the power storage means 900 comprises magnetic material that extends along a portion of the power storage means 900 [0026, 0028, 0128, 0137]. Furthermore, the power storage means 900 defines an aperture or hollow core 904 that extends through the power storage means 900 [0128-0129]);
a coil element ([0129, 0135, 0137]); and
at least one layer positioned within the central aperture, the at least one layer comprising a non-magnetic, non-metallic material (the power storage means 900 may comprise a magnetic material other than its aperture or hollow core 904 [0129, 0137]. For example, the magnetic material may be coated on the periphery of the power storage means 900 [0137]. Meanwhile, the hollow core 904 may be filled with a non-magnetic material (e.g., plastic or ceramic) [0135, 0137]).
Tuseth does not explicitly teach the magnetic core defining an annular groove; and the coil positioned within the annular groove.
The prior art by Giordano is analogous to Tuseth, as they both teach transcutaneous energy transfer systems comprising an external device and an implanted device ([0006, 0007, 0028]).
Giordano teaches the magnetic core defining an annular groove; and the coil positioned within the annular groove (the magnetic or ferrite core 90 having an annular or circular groove 96 [0039]. Specifically, the coil 16 resides within the circular groove 96 [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tuseth’s magnetic core to define an annular groove that contains the coil, as taught by Giordano. The advantage of such modification may increase the range and/or power coupling of the transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) system (see paragraph [0039] by Giordano).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Tuseth in view of Giordano suggests the resonator of claim 1 and the method of claim 14. Tuseth and Giordano do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one layer comprises a plurality of layers.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Tuseth teaches the at least one layer (the hollow core 904 may be filled with a non-magnetic material (e.g., plastic and/or ceramic) [0135, 0137]), configuring the exact number of layers would be a matter of duplicating the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Tuseth in view of Giordano suggests the resonator of claim 4 and the method of claim 18. Tuseth and Giordano do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of layers comprise a first layer fabricated from a first material and a second layer fabricated from a second, different material.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Tuseth teaches the central aperture (e.g., hollow core 904) may include materials that are non-magnetic, such as plastic and ceramic ([0135]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it “obvious to try” to apply a plastic material as the first layer and a ceramic material as the second layer (MPEP 2143). The advantage of such modification may further reduce the interference with the inductance of the coil (see paragraph [0135] by Tuseth).
Regarding claim 6 and 20, Tuseth in view of Giordano suggests the resonator of claim 4 and the method of claim 18. Tuseth and Giordano do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of layers have different thicknesses.
The Examiner respectfully submits, as Tuseth suggests the plurality of layers (the hollow core 904 is filled with non-magnetic layer of material (e.g., plastic and/or ceramic) was previously modified in claims 4 and 18 to include a plurality of layers [see claims 4 and 18 above]), configuring each layer to have a different thickness would be a matter of changing the size of the known elements without producing a new and unexpected result, with such matters having been held by the Courts as being obvious to the skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, Tuseth teaches wherein at least one layer of the plurality of layers is air (the hollow core 904 may be filled with air which does not interfere with the magnetic flux [0135, 0137, 0140]).
6. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuseth et al. in view of Giordano et al., further in view of Forsell (US 2011/0301668 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Tuseth in view of Giordano suggests the resonator of claim 1 and the method of claim 14. Tuseth and Giordano does not explicitly teach wherein the resonator is a transmit resonator.
The prior art by Forsell is analogous to Tuseth, as they both teach both teach transcutaneous energy transfer devices comprising an external device that supplies energy signals to an implanted device ([abstract, 0001, 0251, 0254, 0297]).
Forsell teaches wherein the resonator is a transmit resonator (the resonator or implanted control unit 30 includes a coil 32 which may transmit information from the implanted medical device 10 to the external control unit 20 and/or receive control signals from the external control unit 20 [0251, 0254]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the coil of the resonator suggested by Tuseth in view of Giordano to transmit signals, as taught by Forsell. The advantage of such modification will allow the coil of the implantable resonator to transmit information to the external device (see paragraphs [0251, 0254] by Forsell). The Examiner respectfully submits that Tuseth’s implantable resonator was previously capable of receiving signals ([see the explanation from claim 1 above]), and the modification will allow the implantable resonator to receive and transmit signals.
7. Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuseth et al. in view of Giordano et al., further in view of Kurs (US 2016/0013661 A1)
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Tuseth suggests the resonator of claim 1 and the method of claim 14. Tuseth teaches wherein the at least one layer is fabricated from a plastic or a ceramic (the hollow core 904 may be filled with a non-magnetic material (e.g., plastic or ceramic) [0135, 0137]).
Specifically, Tuseth does not explicitly teach the ceramic material to be aluminum oxide.
The prior art by Kurs is analogous to Tuseth, as they both teach a wireless power transfer system comprising an implanted device ([0064, 0066]).
Kurs teaches the ceramic material to be aluminum oxide ([0077, 0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tuseth’s ceramic material to be composed of aluminum oxide, as taught by Kurs. The advantage of such modification may improve insulation of the magnetic core (see paragraphs [0077, 0094] by Kurs).
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuseth et al. in view of Giordano et al., further in view of Hall et al. (US 2012/0235634 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tuseth in view of Giordano suggests the method of claim 14. Tuseth and Giordano do not explicitly teach wherein positioning at least one layer comprises positioning at least one layer fabricated from epoxy and/or a printed circuit board (PCB) substrate material.
The prior art by Hall is analogous to Tuseth, as they both teach a wireless power transfer system comprising an implantable device ([abstract, 0194]).
Hall teaches wherein positioning at least one layer comprises positioning at least one layer fabricated from epoxy (the resonator structure may have gaps (e.g., aperture) that are filled with an epoxy [0880, 0996]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tuseth’s layer to be fabricated from an epoxy, as taught by Hall. The advantage of such modification may prevent shorting and direct electrical contact with magnetic material or the conductor of the resonator (see paragraphs [0880, 0996] by Hall).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 8-13 are allowed.
10. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or suggest a wireless power transfer system comprising an implantable receive resonator and an external transmitting resonator similar to those recited in the pending claims. Specifically, the prior art of record does not explicitly suggest the external transmitting resonator comprising a central aperture defined by the magnetic core; and at least one layer positioned within the central aperture, the at least one layer comprising a non-magnetic, non-metallic material.
Regarding claim 8, Tuseth teaches a wireless power transfer system comprising an implantable receive resonator and an external transmit resonator (the implantable or intra-corporeal medical device 104 comprises a rechargeable power supply 120 (e.g., implantable receive resonator) consisting of a coil 111 that receives power wirelessly from the extra-corporeal power supply 150 (e.g., external transmitting resonator) [0006, 0033, 0080-0082]), the implantable receive resonator comprising:
a housing (the rechargeable power supply 120 (e.g., implantable receive resonator) consist of an implanted module 110 for wirelessly receiving power and a power storage module 112 [0033, 0080-0082]. Specifically, the rechargeable power supply 120 may be integrated within the housing of the intra-corporeal medical device 104 [0043, 0080-0082, 0090]);
a magnetic core positioned within the housing (the power storage means 112 of the rechargeable power supply 120 comprises a magnetic core material [0026, 0028-0029, 0080, 0128]. As stated previously above, the rechargeable power supply 120 may be integrated within the housing of the intra-corporeal medical device 104 [0043, 0080-0082, 0090]);
the magnetic core defining a central aperture (as stated previously above the power storage means 112 of the rechargeable power supply 120 comprises a magnetic core material [0026, 0028-0029, 0080, 0128]. However, the embodiment of figure 9 describes a power storage means 900 that may be used in the place of the implantable power storage means 112 [0128]. Specifically, the power storage means 900 comprises magnetic material that extends along a portion of the power storage means 900 [0026, 0028, 0128, 0137]. Furthermore, the power storage means 900 defines an aperture or hollow core 904 that extends through the power storage means 900 [0128-0129]);
a coil element ([0129, 0135, 0137]); and
at least one layer positioned within the central aperture, the at least one layer comprising a non-magnetic, non-metallic material (the power storage means 900 may comprise a magnetic material other than its aperture or hollow core 904 [0129, 0137]. For example, the magnetic material may be coated on the periphery of the power storage means 900 [0137]. Meanwhile, the hollow core 904 may be filled with a non-magnetic material (e.g., plastic) [0135, 0137]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Tuseth’s housing, magnetic core, central aperture, coil element, and the at least one layer are part of the implantable receive resonator (see the explanations and citations above).
Tuseth teaches the external receive resonator comprising a housing containing a coil (the extra-corporeal power supply 150 (e.g., external transmitting resonator) comprises a coil which supplies power to the implanted coil 111 of the rechargeable power supply 120 (e.g., implantable receive resonator) that is integrated within the intra-corporeal medical device 104 [0033, 0043, 0080-0082]).
However, Tuseth does not explicitly teach the external receive resonator comprising a magnetic core positioned within the housing, the magnetic core defining an annular groove and a central aperture, the coil element positioned within the annular groove; and at least one layer positioned within the central aperture, the at least one layer comprising a non-magnetic, non-metallic material.
The prior art by Giordano is analogous to Tuseth, as they both teach transcutaneous energy transfer systems comprising an external device and an implanted device ([0006, 0007, 0028]).
Giordano teaches the external receive resonator comprising a magnetic core positioned within the housing, the magnetic core defining an annular groove; and the coil positioned within the annular groove (the cylindrical housing 94 comprises a magnetic or ferrite core 90 having an annular or circular groove 96 [0039]. Specifically, the coil 16 resides within the circular groove 96 [0039]).
However, Giordano does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic core of the external receive resonator defines a central aperture; and at least one layer positioned within the central aperture, the at least one layer comprising a non-magnetic, non-metallic material. The Examiner respectfully submits that Giordano’s magnetic core defines a central rod (e.g., central rod 98) rather than a central aperture ([0039]). Thus, configuring the Giordano’s magnetic core of the external receive resonator to have a central aperture would require a redesign of the entire structure. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify or implement the central aperture from magnetic core of Tuseth’s implantable receive resonator into the magnetic core of Giordano’s external receive resonator, as such modification would interfere with the Giordano’s central rod.
The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Claims 9-13 are considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claims 9-13 depend upon claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art by Stark (US 2013/0127253 A1) is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, as Stark teaches a transcutaneous energy transfer system comprising an external transmitting resonator that supplies power to a receiving resonator of an implanted medical device ([0026]).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights