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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of information disclosure statement filed 27 September 2024
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.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 20, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 7, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 8 – 10 depend on claim 7 and are therefore similarly rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9, 11 – 13, and 16 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0247669 A1), hereafter Nielsen, in view of Morgan et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0060607 A1), hereafter Morgan.
Regarding claim 1:
Nielsen discloses a monitoring system (Nielsen Figure 1 10), comprising:
an implantable sensor device (Nielson Figure 1 15A) shaped and dimensioned for implantation in a human body (Nielson Figure 1) for measuring conditions within the human body to generate sensor data (Nielson [0044]), the sensor device having a single axis antenna (Nielsen [0040] [0045], Figure 4B); and
a receiver device (Nielsen Figure 1 11), for wirelessly receiving the sensor data generated by the implantable sensor device (Nielsen [0072]), and
wherein Helmholtz coils (Nielsen 102, 103, 151, 152) are arranged to communicate with the single axis antenna so as to wirelessly charge the sensor device (Nielsen [0113]).
Nielsen does not disclose the receiver device is a wearable deice and comprises the Helmholtz coils, and the Helmholtz coils are configured to receive the sensor data.
However, Morgan discloses an intra-uterine monitoring system. More particularly, Morgan discloses a wearable receiver (Morgan [0032] Figure 1) and using the antenna for both charging and signal transmission (Mogan [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nielson wherein receiver device is a wearable deice and comprises the Helmholtz coils, and the Helmholtz coils are configured to receive the sensor data, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate by making the receiver device wearable it can be kept in close proximity to the sensor device on a long-term basis, making regular monitoring viable (Morgan ABSTRACT).
Regarding claim 2:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor data is one or more of pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration (Nielsen [0102]; see also Morgan [0032]).
Regarding claim 3:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the single axis antenna is configured to operate a frequency in the range of 119 kHz to 140 kHz, preferably 130kHz to 140 KHz, preferably 139.6 kHz (Morgan [0040][0049]).
Regarding claim 4:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein a first Helmholtz coil is positioned on a first side of the signal axis antenna, and a second Helmholtz coil is positioned on a second side of the single axis antenna (Nielson Figure 7; see 112 rejections above regarding optional feature).
Regarding claim 5:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the Helmholtz coils have a radius selected to optimise both the coupling efficiency with the signal axis antenna and the peak magnetic field on the axis of the coil (Neilson 102, 103 – are coils are implicitly optimized to perform sensing function).
Regarding claim 6:
Nielsen (In view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor device is implantable in a human uterus (Morgan [0032] and Figure 1); and optionally wherein the implantable sensor device comprises a body and one or more arms, the arms projecting laterally from the body to secure the sensor within the uterus (see 112 rejection above regarding optional feature).
Regarding claim 7: Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the wearable receiver device is a wearable garment (Morgan [0032] Figure 1); and optionally wherein the wearable garment is underwear (see 112 rejection above regarding optional feature).
Regarding claim 8:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 7, wherein a first Helmholtz coil is positioned in a first side of the garment and a second Helmholtz coil is positioned in a second side of the garment, such that when the garment is worn by a user the first Helmholtz coil is located on an opposite side of the user to the second Helmholtz coil (Nielson Figure 7).
Regarding claim 9:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 7, wherein the Helmholtz coils are arranged to follow contours of the human body when the garment is worn by a user (Nielson [0143]), to substantially align with the single axis antenna of the implanted device (the particular alignment of the coil appears to be functional language).
Regarding claim 11:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the receiver device comprises two Helmholtz coils (Nielson Figure 7 and 8 – Helmholtz coils are generally arranged with at least a pair of coils).
Regarding claim 12:
Nielson (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein a first electric current is driven in a first direction around a first of the Helmholtz coils when viewed from a first perspective, and a second electric current is driven in the first direction around the second of the Helmholtz coils when viewed from the first perspective (inherent function/operation of Helmholtz Coil).
Regarding claim 13:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein a first electric current is driven in a first direction around a first of the Helmholtz coils when view from a first perspective, and a second electric current is driven in a second direction, different from the first direction, around the second of the Helmholtz coils when viewed form the first perspective (inherent function/operation of Helmholtz Coil).
Regarding claim 16:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the Helmholtz coils are planar wound wire (Nielsen [0161] Figure 8C).Regarding claim 17:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) does not expressly disclose the monitoring system according to claim 16, wherein the Helmholtz coils are provided between two moisture sealing layers.
However, it would have been obvious to further modify Nielson (in view of Morgan) wherein the Helmholtz coils are provided between two moisture sealing layers, as claimed, to thereby protect the device and user from electrical discharge.
Regarding claim 18:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the Helmholtz coils comprise copper tracks provided on polyimide film (Nielsen [0161] Figure 8C).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Claim(s) 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0247669 A1), hereafter Nielsen, in view of Morgan et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0060607 A1), hereafter Morgan, in view of Daniel R. Burnett (Publication number: US 2022/0088373 A1), hereafter Burnett.
Regarding claim 10:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 7, wherein the Helmholtz coils are arranged to follow contours of the human body when the garment is worn by a user.
However, Burnett discloses methods and devices for performing electrical stimulation to treat various condition. More particularly, Burnett discloses wherein the Helmholtz coils are arranged to follow contours of the human body when the garment is worn by a user (Burnett [0090][0128]).
It would have been obvious to modify Nielsen (in view of Morgan) wherein the Helmholtz coils are arranged to follow contours of the human body when the garment is worn by a user, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate optimize magnetic flux over the body.
Regarding claim 14:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan) does not disclose the monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein the receiver device comprises four Helmholtz coils.
However, Burnett discloses methods and devices for performing electrical stimulation to treat various condition. More particularly, Burnett discloses wherein the receiver device comprises four Helmholtz coils (Burnett [0090][0095] and Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to modify Nielsen (in view of Morgan) wherein the receiver device comprises four Helmholtz coils, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate optimize magnetic flux over the body.
Regarding claim 15:
Nielsen (in view of Morgan and Burnett) discloses the monitoring system according to claim 14, wherein the four Helmholtz coils are provided as two pairs of coils, each coil of a pairs arranged to be positioned on an opposite side of the implantable sensor device to the other coil of the pair of coils (Burnett [0090][0095] and Figure 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (EST).
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 11 June 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights