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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/6/24, 2/14/25, 5/21/25, 7/11/25, 2/2/26, 4/27/26, and 4/29/26 are considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendments to claims filed 5/21/25 are entered.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13-14, 17-18, 21, 24-26, 32, 34, and 36-38 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second biocompatible substrate” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 24 and 34 are 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.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation of “wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises a first and second biocompatible substrates” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact, in what manner or form the biocompatible substrate is intended to comprise said first and second biocompatible substrates, i.e., if the substrates are conjoined and if so in what arrangement, or separate and if so in what relative orientation; thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined and the claim is indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation of “wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises first and second biocompatible substrates” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact, in what manner or form the biocompatible substrate is intended to comprise said first and second biocompatible substrates, i.e., if the substrates are conjoined and if so in what arrangement, or separate and if so in what relative orientation; thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are undefined and the claim is indefinite in scope. Further, the limitations of “a first plurality of conductive traces” and “a second plurality of conductive traces” are indefinite in that it is not clear whether they are intended to reference the same “first plurality of conductive traces” and “second plurality of conductive traces” established in claim 1. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 21, 24, 26, 32, 34, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0202505) in view of Celik (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0191073).
Regarding claim 1, Roche teaches (Figs. 6-7) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, the system comprising: an electronic circuitry (54) comprising: at least one sensor (80, 82, see ¶47); a processor configured to receive data by the at least one sensor (see ¶47); and a communication circuitry connected to the processor and configured to transmit the data obtained by the at least one sensor (72); and an antenna (60) present on a biocompatible substrate (52), the antenna connected to the communication circuitry and further configured to facilitate transmission of the data (see ¶47).
Roche does not teach the antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces, the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces, the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces, and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring.
Celik teaches (Fig. 5a) an antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces (110c1, 110c2, 110c3) present on a substrate (102), the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces (110c3) surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces (110c2), the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces (connected via disposition on the same substrate 102), and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring (see Fig. 5a) and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring (see Fig. 5a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the antenna comprises a plurality of conductive traces, the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces, the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces, and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring, employing the teachings of Celik.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing variation in gain and improving phase center stability of the antenna (Celik, ¶52 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 21, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1.
Roche does not teach wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side, and wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on the first and second sides of the biocompatible substrate.
Celik teaches (Figs. 1, 2, 5a) an antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces (110, 104) present on a substrate (102), the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces (110c3) surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces (110c2), the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces (connected via disposition on the same substrate 102), and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring (see Fig. 5a) and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring (see Fig. 5a), wherein the substrate comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side (see Fig. 2), and wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on the first and second sides of the substrate (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the biocompatible substrate comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side, and wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on the first and second sides of the biocompatible substrate, employing the teachings of Celik.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing variation in gain and improving phase center stability of the antenna (Celik, ¶52 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 24, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1, wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises a first and second biocompatible substrates (substrate 52 may be construed as comprising two layered or otherwise conjoined substrates).
Roche does not teach wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on the first and second biocompatible substrates.
Celik teaches (Figs. 1, 2, 5a) an antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces (110, 104) present on a substrate (102), the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces (110c3) surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces (110c2), the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces (connected via disposition on the same substrate 102), and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring (see Fig. 5a) and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring (see Fig. 5a), wherein the substrate comprises a first and second substrates (substrate 102 may be construed as comprising two layered or otherwise conjoined substrates), and wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on the first and second substrates (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the biocompatible substrate comprises a first and second biocompatible substrates, and wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on the first and second biocompatible substrates, employing the teachings of Celik.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing variation in gain and improving phase center stability of the antenna (Celik, ¶52 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 26, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1.
Roche does not teach wherein the antenna comprises a feed connecting the plurality of conductive traces to the communication circuitry.
Celik teaches (Fig. 5a) an antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces (110c1, 110c2, 110c3) present on a substrate (102), the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces (110c3) surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces (110c2), the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces (connected via disposition on the same substrate 102), and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring (see Fig. 5a) and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring (see Fig. 5a), wherein the antenna comprises a feed connecting the plurality of conductive traces to the communication circuitry (108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the antenna comprises a feed connecting the plurality of conductive traces to the communication circuitry, employing the teachings of Celik.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the antenna and reducing variation in gain and improving phase center stability of the antenna (Celik, ¶52 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 32, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1.
Roche does not teach wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on a first side of the biocompatible substrate, and wherein a ground plane is present on a second side of the biocompatible substrate opposite the first side.
Celik teaches (Figs. 1, 2, 5a) an antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces (110, 104) present on a substrate (102), the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces (110c3) surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces (110c2), the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces (connected via disposition on the same substrate 102), and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring (see Fig. 5a) and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring (see Fig. 5a), wherein the plurality of conductive traces is present on a first side of the biocompatible substrate (104 present on top side, see Fig. 2), and wherein a ground plane is present on a second side of the biocompatible substrate opposite the first side (116 present on bottom side, ‘on’ here construed as encompassing an arrangement where the ground plane 116 and the presence of the conductive trace 104 are opposite one another relative to 102, with 102 therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the plurality of conductive traces is present on a first side of the biocompatible substrate, and wherein a ground plane is present on a second side of the biocompatible substrate opposite the first side, employing the teachings of Celik.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing variation in gain and improving phase center stability of the antenna (Celik, ¶52 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 34, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1, wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises first and second biocompatible substrates (substrate 52 may be construed as comprising two layered or otherwise conjoined substrates).
Roche does not teach wherein a first plurality of conductive traces is present on the first biocompatible substrate and a second plurality of conductive traces is present on the second biocompatible substrate.
Celik teaches (Figs. 1, 2, 5a) an antenna comprising a plurality of conductive traces (110, 104) present on a substrate (102), the plurality of conductive traces comprising a first plurality of conductive traces (110c3) surrounding a second plurality of conductive traces (110c2), the first plurality of conductive traces connected to the second plurality of conductive traces (connected via disposition on the same substrate 102), and the first plurality of conductive traces arranged in a first ring (see Fig. 5a) and the second plurality of conductive traces arranged in a second ring surrounded by the first ring (see Fig. 5a), wherein the substrate comprises a first and second substrates (substrate 102 may be construed as comprising two layered or otherwise conjoined substrates), and wherein a first plurality of conductive traces is present on the first biocompatible substrate and a second plurality of conductive traces is present on the second biocompatible substrate (see Fig. 2, 102 may be construed as comprising an outer substrate and an inner substrate, the outer substrate supporting 110c3, and the inner substrate supporting 110c2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the biocompatible substrate comprises first and second biocompatible substrates, and wherein a first plurality of conductive traces is present on the first biocompatible substrate and a second plurality of conductive traces is present on the second biocompatible substrate, employing the teachings of Celik.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing variation in gain and improving phase center stability of the antenna (Celik, ¶52 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 38, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1, wherein the antenna is configured to transmit and receive in first and second distinct frequency bands (¶47 lines 20-28).
Claims 2 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0202505) in view of Celik (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0191073) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0137381).
Regarding claim 2, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1.
Roche does not teach wherein the plurality of conductive traces are painted or printed on the biocompatible substrate.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 5B) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, comprising: an antenna (a) comprising a plurality of conductive traces (521, 522) present on a biocompatible substrate (523), wherein the plurality of conductive traces are painted or printed on the biocompatible substrate (¶203).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the plurality of conductive traces are painted or printed on the biocompatible substrate, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of suitably forming substantially thin and biocompatible antenna structures in the implantable system (Lee, ¶169).
Regarding claim 25, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1.
Roche does not teach wherein the plurality of conductive traces is made from one or more biocompatible materials.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 5B) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, comprising: an antenna (a) comprising a plurality of conductive traces (521, 522) present on a biocompatible substrate (523), wherein the plurality of conductive traces are painted or printed on the biocompatible substrate (¶203), wherein the plurality of conductive traces is made from one or more biocompatible materials (¶169 lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the plurality of conductive traces is made from one or more biocompatible materials, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of suitably forming substantially thin and biocompatible antenna structures in the implantable system (Lee, ¶169).
Claims 3, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0202505) in view of Celik (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0191073) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fenner et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0273824).
Regarding claim 3, Roche teaches the implantable system.
Roche does not teach wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises at least one of liquid crystal polymer, polyimide, or polyamide.
Fenner et al. teaches (Fig. 4) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, comprising: an antenna (404) present on a biocompatible substrate (408), wherein the biocompatible substrate comprises at least one of liquid crystal polymer, polyimide, or polyamide (¶69 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the biocompatible substrate comprises at least one of liquid crystal polymer, polyimide, or polyamide, employing the teachings of Fenner.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving biocompatibility of the implantable system (Fenner, ¶69).
Regarding claim 13, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 1.
Roche does not teach wherein the biocompatible substrate is supported by a spacer separating the antenna from the electronic circuitry.
Fenner et al. teaches (Fig. 5) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, comprising: an electronic circuitry (412; see analogous 108, comprising electronic circuitry, see ¶31); and an antenna (404) present on a biocompatible substrate (408), wherein the biocompatible substrate is supported by a spacer separating the antenna from the electronic circuitry (502; see ¶72).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that the biocompatible substrate is supported by a spacer separating the antenna from the electronic circuitry, employing the teachings of Fenner.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of shielding the antenna from undesired influence from the electronic circuitry (Fenner, ¶72).
Regarding claim 17, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 13, wherein the antenna is configured to transmit and receive in a frequency band (¶47).
Roche does not teach wherein a height of the spacer is selected to facilitate transmission and reception in the frequency band.
Fenner et al. teaches (Fig. 5) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, comprising: an electronic circuitry (412; see analogous 108, comprising electronic circuitry, see ¶31); and an antenna (404) present on a biocompatible substrate (408), wherein the biocompatible substrate is supported by a spacer separating the antenna from the electronic circuitry (502; see ¶72), and wherein a height of the spacer is selected to facilitate transmission reception in a frequency band (¶72, magnetic shielding facilitates transmission and reception by reducing undesired influence from electronic circuitry, requiring a height substantive for effective magnetic shielding).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche such that a height of the spacer is selected to facilitate transmission and reception in the frequency band, employing the teachings of Fenner.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of shielding the antenna from undesired influence from the electronic circuitry (Fenner, ¶72).
Regarding claim 18, Roche teaches the implantable system of claim 13.
Roche does not teach the implantable system further comprising a cover enclosing the antenna and the spacer.
Fenner et al. teaches (Fig. 5) an implantable system for a body part of a patient, comprising: an electronic circuitry (412; see analogous 108, comprising electronic circuitry, see ¶31); and an antenna (404) present on a biocompatible substrate (408), wherein the biocompatible substrate is supported by a spacer separating the antenna from the electronic circuitry (502; see ¶72), and further comprising a cover enclosing the antenna and the spacer (410).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the implantable system of Roche to further comprise a cover enclosing the antenna and the spacer, employing the teachings of Fenner.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving biocompatibility of the implantable system (Fenner, ¶69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 14, and 36-37 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.
Regarding claim 7, Roche does not teach wherein the first plurality of conductive traces comprises a first plurality of interconnected petals and the second plurality of conductive traces comprises a second plurality of interconnected petals, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10 are included for their dependency upon claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Roche does not teach wherein the antenna further comprises an additional conductive trace supported by the spacer and connected to a conductive trace of the plurality of conductive traces, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 36, Roche does not teach wherein the plurality of conductive traces is arranged in a zig-zag pattern, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 37, Roche does not teach wherein the antenna comprises a planar inverted-F antenna, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights