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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim (s) 1-2,5,7,9,11.13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greenberg et al. (US 2009/0124965 A1) hereinafter Greenberg.
Regarding claim 1, Greenberg discloses a hermetically-sealed package (14;Fig.8) comprising : a housing (see 62, and 84 forming a housing) ; one or more electronic devices (70) disposed in the housing; a substrate (60) comprising ceramic (60 is made of ceramic;[0089]) the substrate hermetically sealed to the housing (60,62, and 84 form a hermetic seal); and one or more corrosion-resistant vias (see 66) disposed in the substrate, each of the one or more corrosion-resistant vias comprising: one or more sidewalls formed by the substrate (see sidewalls of via formed by 60) ; a corrosion-resistant alloy (palladium/platinum alloy layer [0100]); and a hermetic and corrosion-resistant seal (titanium ; [0101]) formed between the corrosion- resistant alloy (palladium/platinum alloy layer) and the one or more sidewalls (side wall of ceramic via 66).
Regarding claim 2, Greenberg discloses wherein the hermetic and corrosion- resistant seal formed between the corrosion-resistant alloy and the one or more sidewalls comprises a reaction layer bonding the corrosion-resistant alloy and the one or more sidewalls (reacting layer formed between ceramic and titanium is formed of titanium oxide during the bonding process).
Regarding claim 5, Greenberg discloses wherein the hermetic and corrosion- resistant seal formed between the corrosion-resistant alloy and the one or more sidewalls comprises an interface layer bonding the corrosion-resistant alloy to the substrate (reacting layer formed between ceramic and titanium is formed of titanium oxide during the bonding process).
Regarding claim 7 Greenberg discloses, further comprising a thin film component (10 and 12;Fig.7) disposed on a surface of the substrate (60:Fig.7).
Regarding claim 9 Greenberg discloses wherein the thin film component comprises an electrode ( end of 10 and 12 is connected to an electrode).
Regarding claim 11 Greenberg a fixation element directly coupled to one of the one or more corrosion-resistant vias (see connecting pad that connects to 60 that is electrically coupled with 92 of 10 and 11; Fig.7).
Regarding claim 13 Greenberg discloses wherein the hermetically-sealed package comprises an implantable medical device ( housing of Fig.6 is disposed in the brain of a human body).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kan et al. (US 2023/0199938 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Greenberg fails to disclose wherein the corrosion-resistant alloy comprises a gold alloy.
Kan discloses a gold alloy (see signal via 240 may be a gold plated allow; [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Kan to modify via of Greenberg in order to provide superior conductivity.
Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg as applied to claim 7above, and further in view of Shah (US 2018/0277970 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Greenberg fails to specifically disclose wherein the thin film component comprises an antenna.
Shah discloses an antenna (see 132 including an antenna; Fig.3;[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the antenna of Shah with the device of Greenberg in order to transmit signals to perform circuit operations.
Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg.
Regarding claim 10, Greenberg fails to specifically disclose, wherein the thin film component has a thickness of at least 0.5 micrometers and no greater than 3 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a thin film component has a thickness of at least 0.5 micrometers and no greater than 3 micrometers in order to properly transmit electrical signals from the brain to the device , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Villamil (EP 4176925 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Greenberg fails to specifically disclose a continuous electroplated conductive element disposed on an outer surface of the housing and an outer surface of the substrate.
Villamil discloses a continuous electroplated conductive element (28:Fig.4; “The electrodes 26 and 28 may be applied to the outer or body fluid side surface 22A of the green-state ceramic housing 22 by thin and thick film technologies, such as printing, screen printing, pad printing, painting, plating, brush coating, direct bonding, active metal brazing, magnetron sputtering, physical vapor deposition, ion implantation, electroplating, and electroless plating”)disposed on an outer surface of the housing (22;Fig.3 and Fig.4) and an outer surface of the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the coating layer of Villamil to modify the housing of Greenber in order to protect the housing from body fluids and corrosion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed over prior art of record.
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 3-4, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the corrosion-resistant alloy comprises zirconium. " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 14-20, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach"a first electrode comprising a corrosion-resistant via disposed in the battery housing and electrically coupled to the anode of the electrochemical cell; and a second electrode comprising a corrosion-resistant via disposed in the battery housing and electrically coupled to the cathode of the electrochemical cell" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 14.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instantapplication claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights