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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04 May 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 13-14, 20, 78-79, 82, 106, 394, 398, 400-401, and 403 have been amended, claims 4-12, 16-19, 21-22, 24-25, 27-46, 48-49, 53-75, 77, 81, 87-96, 98-105, and 107-393 have been canceled, claims 50-52 have been withdrawn, and claim 404 has been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 13-15, 20, 23, 26, 47, 76, 78-80, 82-86, 97, 106, and 394-404 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04 May 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
However, new objections are made below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, as explained in further detail below.
Claim Objections
Claim 402 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a rectifier” should read “the rectifier”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 13-15, 20, 23, 26, 47, 76, 78-80, 82-86, 97, 106, 394-404 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitations:
a resonant electrical circuit configured for use in increasing energy efficiency in delivery of the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to the patient in accordance with a predetermined waveform,
a rectifier nodally connected with the resonant electrical circuit and configured to provide at least one of: active and passive rectification with regard to the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current delivered to the patient,
a filter nodally connected with the rectifier and configured for use in controlling bandwidth associated with the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current delivered to the patient
in the application as filed.
See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[MPEP] § 2163.04 [subsection] (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection.").
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 1-3, 13-15, 20, 23, 26, 47, 76, 78-80, 82-86, 97, 106, 394-404 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.
The term “increasing energy efficiency” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “increasing energy efficiency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no basis for comparison of the energy efficiency of delivering the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to the patient. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be omitted.
Claims 2-3, 13-15, 20, 23, 26, 47, 76, 78-80, 82-86, 97, 106, 394-404 are also rejected because they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-14, 26, 47, 76, 79, 395-398, and 400-403 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe.
Regarding claim 1, Wuthrich teaches a system for generating an electrotherapeutic defibrillation pulse to be delivered to a patient (paragraph [0002]), the system comprising:
an energy storage capacitor for providing electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to the patient (paragraph [0016], "For example, an operator could employ an electromechanical switch that selects one of two charged capacitors (or selects one of two voltages to which a single capacitor is charged) and discharges the selected capacitor (or selected voltage) into the patient.");
a therapeutic current control network (Fig. 5), electrically coupled to the energy storage capacitor, for controlling the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to be delivered to the patient (paragraph [0066], "Output energy storage device 430 is implemented by output capacitor 560"), for controlling the electrotherapeutic current to be delivered to the patient (paragraph [0069], "FIG. 6 is a graphical representation of illustrative embodiments of control signals to, and resulting current and voltage waveforms of, selected circuit elements of the circuit of FIG. 5, aligned along a common time axis."),
a rectifier nodally connected with the resonant electrical circuit and configured to provide active rectification with regard to the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current delivered to the patient (paragraph [0068], "H-bridge switches 570, 572, 574, or 576 may similarly be implemented by insulated-gate bipolar transistors, field-effect transistors, silicon controlled rectifiers, or other known solid state devices or similar devices to be developed in the future"),
a filter nodally connected with the rectifier and configured for use in controlling bandwidth associated with the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current delivered to the patient (paragraph [0075], "output capacitor 560 provides filtering of the high frequency pulsatile output"),
at least one current control switch for controlling current flow for delivery of an electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform to the patient (paragraph [0066], "Biphasic converter 330 is implemented by the H-bridge made up of switches 570, 572, 574, and 576."); and
a controller electrically coupled to the energy storage capacitor and the therapeutic current control network (Fig. 5, controller 215 is connected to all components of the rapid discharge energy storage device including the discharge capacitor and the current control mechanisms of the circuit),
wherein the controller is configured to select a predetermined waveform from among the plurality of predetermined waveforms for delivery to the patient (paragraphs [0047], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0055], [0084]-[0085]), and
in connection with the energy provided by the energy storage capacitor, control operation of the at least one current control switch of the therapeutic current control network in delivering an electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform for delivery to the patient before reaching the patient, control a switching frequency of the at least one current control switch to adjust the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform being delivered to the patient during delivery such that the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform corresponds with a predetermined waveform (paragraph [0059], "controller 215 may adjust waveform control signals 112 to the step-up or step-down converters of generator 120"; paragraph [0075], "Controller 215 adjusts the widths of the pulses of control signal 620 (or other parameters in alternative implementations of pulse-width or frequency modulation or hysteretic control) to control the current flowing through inductor 530, switch 572, load resistor 580, and switch 574 to common. As is evident, output capacitor 560 provides filtering of the high frequency pulsatile output").Wuthrich does not explicitly disclose a resonant electrical circuit configured for use in increasing energy efficiency in delivery of the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to the patient in accordance with a predetermined waveform, wherein energy provided by the energy storage capacitor for the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform for delivery to the patient flows through the resonant electrical circuit before reaching the patient, the at least one current control switch being connected to the energy storage capacitor and the resonant electrical circuit.
However, Schwalbe teaches a method and a device for defibrillation (Abstract) comprising a resonant electrical circuit configured for use in increasing energy efficiency in delivery of the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to the patient in accordance with a predetermined waveform (Figs. 8-9, paragraph [0090]; paragraph [0027], "the voltage converter for generating the high voltage is implemented in conjunction with the translator as a resonance voltage converter, so that higher efficiencies can be achieved in the high-voltage generation"),
wherein energy provided by the energy storage capacitor for the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform for delivery to the patient flows through the resonant electrical circuit before reaching the patient (paragraph [0063], "During the generation of the shock with the current waveform I.sub.OUT the energy store (12) discharges"; paragraph [0089], "The voltage DCin (input voltage of the inverter in the low-voltage range) can be converted into the output voltage HVout using the components shown"), the at least one current control switch being connected to the energy storage capacitor and the resonant electrical circuit (paragraph [0075], "the voltage converter DC2 (21) can be controlled directly by the processor (19)").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich with the teachings of Schwalbe to include a resonant electrical circuit configured for use in increasing energy efficiency in delivery of the electrotherapeutic defibrillation current to the patient in accordance with a predetermined waveform, wherein energy provided by the energy storage capacitor for the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform for delivery to the patient flows through the resonant electrical circuit before reaching the patient, the at least one current control switch being connected to the energy storage capacitor and the resonant electrical circuit, because doing so achieves higher efficiencies, reduces switching losses, and provides additional voltage gain (Schwalbe, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches at least one sensor configured to sense at least one electrical parameter from which current flow to the patient can be determined or estimated (paragraph [0026], "The defibrillator may further include at least one sensor for determining a patient impedance."), wherein the controller is configured to:
process a signal associated with the sensed at least one electrical parameter (paragraph [0051], "under the control of software, firmware, and/or hardware in accordance with known techniques, determiner 210 activates initial impedance sensor 135. Sensor 135, in a known manner, provides initial patient impedance value 254, which is illustratively assumed to be represented by 50 ohms");
compare the processed signal with a second signal associated with the predetermined waveform (paragraph [0050], "Determiner 210 makes these determinations using one or more of the other sources of information noted above: waveform data and templates 212, initial impedance sensor 135, and/or operational impedance sensor 130"); and
control operation of the at least one current control switch of the therapeutic current control network in adjusting delivery of the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform to the patient to correspond with the predetermined waveform (paragraph [0056], "Similarly, determiner210 may determine and/or adjust various parameters of intended waveform parameters 264 based on information provided by initial impedance sensor 135 and/or operational impedance sensor 130. As noted, using known techniques, initial impedance sensor 135 senses initial patient impedance value 254 that is indicative of a patient's impedance prior to administering a defibrillation waveform").
Regarding claim 3, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches wherein the at least one current control switch comprises a plurality of switches (Fig. 5, H bridge switches 570, 572, 574, 576, and patient isolation relay has switches 582 and 584), and wherein the control of the operation of the at least one current control switch of the therapeutic current control network in the adjusting of the delivery of the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform to the patient to correspond with the predetermined waveform comprises controlling a configuration of each of the plurality of switches as open or closed (paragraph [0070], "Control signal 605 controls the states of H bridge switches 570 and 576. In the illustrative example, control signal 605 is a voltage waveform indicating that, from initial time 601 to a subsequent time 603, a control voltage applied to switches 570 and 576 is in a low state that is arbitrarily assumed for illustrative purposes to indicate that these switches are open. For example, voltage level 606 may be zero volts. At time 603, the voltage level of control signal 605 increases to a positive voltage 607; e.g., five volts. This high voltage state is assumed to indicate that switches 570 and 576 are closed").
Regarding claim 13, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches a battery (Fig. 5, capacitor 510) and a bidirectional charging control network (Fig. 5, step-up converter 410 and step down converter 420), wherein:
the battery and the bidirectional charging control network are connected via a first node and a second node (Fig. 5, node 505 and the vertically connected node beneath), and
the bidirectional charging control network and the energy storage capacitor are connected via a third node and a fourth node (Fig. 5, node 507 and the vertically connected node beneath), wherein:
the bidirectional charging control network is for controlling energy flow from the battery to the energy storage capacitor for storage by the energy storage capacitor, and from the energy storage capacitor to the battery for storage by the battery (paragraph [0066], "Rapid-discharge energy storage device 320 is implemented in the circuit of FIG. 5 by capacitor 510. Output energy storage device 430 is implemented by output capacitor 560. Step-down converter 410 is implemented by buck transistor (hereafter, buck switch) 515, buck diode 520, inductor 530, and capacitor 560. Step-up converter 420 is implemented by boost transistor (hereafter, boost switch) 540, boost diode 550, inductor 530, and capacitor 560.": Examiner respectfully submits that switching of the buck/boost converter moves energy in different directions around the circuit).
Regarding claim 14, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches a battery (Fig. 5, capacitor 510) and a bidirectional charging control network (Fig. 5, step-up converter 410 and step down converter 420), wherein:
the battery and the bidirectional charging control network are connected via a seventh node and an eighth node (Fig. 5, node 505 and the vertically connected node beneath), and
the bidirectional charging control network and the energy storage capacitor are connected via a ninth node and a tenth node (Fig. 5, node 507 and the vertically connected node beneath), wherein:
the bidirectional charging control network is for controlling energy flow from the battery to the energy storage capacitor for storage by the energy storage capacitor, and from the energy storage capacitor to the battery for storage by the battery (paragraph [0066], "Rapid-discharge energy storage device 320 is implemented in the circuit of FIG. 5 by capacitor 510. Output energy storage device 430 is implemented by output capacitor 560. Step-down converter410 is implemented by buck transistor (hereafter, buck switch) 515, buck diode 520, inductor 530, and capacitor 560. Step-up converter 420 is implemented by boost transistor (hereafter, boost switch) 540, boost diode 550, inductor 530, and capacitor 560.": Examiner respectfully submits that switching of the buck/boost converter moves energy in different directions around the circuit).
Regarding claim 26, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Schwalbe further teaches that the controller is configured to control operation of the at least one current control switch to provide zero voltage switching (ZVS) and zero current switching (ZCS) (paragraph [0027], "The switching losses can be reduced by switching at a zero-crossing of the applied voltage or a zero-crossing of the current flowing").
Regarding claim 47, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich does not explicitly disclose that the resonant electrical circuit is a two element resonant tank. However, Schwalbe further teaches that the resonant electrical circuit is a two-element resonant tank (Fig. 9, L9 and C9.3 form a two-element resonant tank).
Regarding claim 76, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches a driver circuit for use in control of operation of the at least one current control switch, wherein the driver circuit is connected to ground (Fig. 5, circuit includes components that drive the current/voltage and control of switches and is connected to ground 500).
Regarding claim 79, the system of claim 2 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches wherein the therapeutic current control network and the at least one sensor are connected via a node (paragraph [0077], "Connecting line 414 represents an alternative implementation in which a sensor is positioned in step-down converter 410, and connecting line 416 represents yet another implementation in which a sensor is positioned between output energy storage device 430 and biphasic converter 330 (such as at point 503). Lines 424, 414, and 416 are shown as dotted lines to indicate that, in alternative implementations, any one, or any combination, of them may be employed").
Regarding claim 395, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich does not explicitly disclose that the resonant electrical circuit comprises a resonant tank. However, Schwalbe further teaches that the resonant electrical circuit comprises a resonant tank (Fig. 9, L9 and C9.3 form a resonant tank).
Regarding claim 396, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich does not explicitly disclose that the resonant electrical circuit comprises a resonant tank. However, Schwalbe further teaches a resonant converter comprising the resonant tank (paragraph [0090], "resonant circuit or the resonant converter").
Regarding claim 397, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further discloses that the controller is configured to select the predetermined waveform based at least in part of a desired amount of energy to be delivered to the patient (paragraphs [0047], [0050], [0053], [0055], "desired charge" is analogous to "desired amount of energy") and a measured impedance of the patient (paragraphs [0047], [0050], [0053]), the measured impedance of the patient being measured by the system (paragraph [0047], "the patient impedance value may also be measured, such as by initial impedance sensor 135 or operational impedance sensor 130").
Regarding claim 398, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further discloses that controlling current flow comprises adjusting current flow (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 400, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further discloses that the energy storage capacitor and the at least one current control switch are nodally connected (Wuthrich Fig. 5, capacitor 650 is connected with switches 570 and 574 via top node (voltage node 502) and bottom node (unnamed node) of the line circuit drawing).
Regarding claim 401, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Schwalbe further teaches that the at least one current control switch and the resonant electrical circuit are nodally connected (paragraph [0075], "the voltage converter DC2 (21) can be controlled directly by the processor (19)").
Regarding claim 402, the system of claim 400 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Schwalbe further teaches that the resonant electrical circuit and a rectifier are connected (Fig. 9, paragraphs [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 403, the system of claim 402 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Schwalbe further teaches that the resonant electrical circuit and the rectifier are nodally connected (Fig. 9, paragraphs [0090]-[0091]).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2011/0112599 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 15, the system of claim 14 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses that the bidirectional charging control network comprises a second resonant electrical circuit comprising a resonant tank.
However, Zhang teaches an implantable medical device connected to a cardiac rhythm management device (paragraph [0002]) wherein the bidirectional charging control network comprises a second resonant electrical circuit comprising a resonant tank (Fig. 1, LC tank circuit 112 and shunt series LC circuit 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Zhang so that the bidirectional charging control network comprises a second resonant electrical circuit comprising a resonant tank, because doing so enables an MRI-compatible device that is immune to the influence of MRI magnetic fields (Zhang, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches at least one sensor, configured to sense at least one electrical parameter from which current flow to the patient can be determined (paragraph [0056], “Also, operational impedance sensor 130 may measure operational patient impedance values 256 by measuring various operational parameters of applied waveform generator 120, such as instantaneous, peak, average, or other measures of currents, voltages, or other values.”), but does not explicitly disclose that said sensor is nodally connected with at least one polarity control switch.
However, Zhang teaches an implantable medical device connected to a cardiac rhythm management device (paragraph [0002]) comprising a sensor connected with the at least one polarity control switch via nodes (paragraph [0111], “The electrode configuration switch 1626 includes a plurality of switches for connecting the desired terminals (e.g., that are connected to electrodes, coils, sensors, etc.) to the appropriate 1/0 circuits, thereby providing complete terminal and, hence, electrode programmability. Accordingly, switch 1626, in response to a control signal 1642 from the microcontroller 1620, may be used to determine the polarity of the stimulation pulses (e.g., unipolar, bipolar, combipolar, etc.) by selectively closing the appropriate combination of switches (not shown) as is known in the art”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Zhang so that the at least one sensor is nodally connected with at least one polarity control switch, because doing so enables terminal and electrode programmability (Zhang, paragraph [0111]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Schatz et al. (US 2012/0032522 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Schatz.
Regarding claim 23, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses that the controller is configured to control operation of the at least one current control switch of the therapeutic current control network to stagger a time of initiation of current switching relative to a time of initiation of voltage switching, the voltage switching being associated with the current switching, so as to reduce switching losses relative to substantially simultaneous initiation of the current switching and the associated voltage switching.
However, Schatz teaches a system for wireless power transfer (paragraph [0019]) wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the at least one current control switch of the therapeutic current control network to stagger a time of initiation of current switching relative to a time of initiation of voltage switching, the voltage switching being associated with the current switching, so as to reduce switching losses relative to substantially simultaneous initiation of the current switching and the associated voltage switching (paragraph [0116], “This operating condition may be accomplished by designing the system so that the switching operations which are most critical (namely those that are most likely to lead to switching losses) are done when both the voltage across the switching element and the current through the switching element are zero. These conditions may be referred to as Zero Voltage Switching (ZVS) and Zero Current Switching (ZCS) conditions respectively. When an amplifier operates at ZVS and ZCS either the voltage across the switching element or the current through the switching element is zero and thus no power can be dissipated in the switch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Schatz so that the controller is configured to control operation of the at least one current control switch of the therapeutic current control network to stagger a time of initiation of current switching relative to a time of initiation of voltage switching, the voltage switching being associated with the current switching, so as to reduce switching losses relative to substantially simultaneous initiation of the current switching and the associated voltage switching, because doing so allows for power delivery at maximum efficiency when no power is dissipated on the switching elements (Schatz paragraph [0116]).
Claims 78, 85, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0068068 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 78, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses that the energy storage capacitor and a first portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising a patient load are connected via a first node; the first portion of the therapeutic current control network and a second portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising the resonant electrical circuit are connected via a second node; and the second portion of the therapeutic current control network and a third portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising the at least one current control switch are connected via a third node.
However, Liu teaches a resonant power converter (Abstract) wherein:
the energy storage capacitor and a first portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising a patient load and are connected via a first node (Fig. 5, voltage node z02);
the first portion of the therapeutic current control network and a second portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising the resonant electrical circuit are connected via a second node (Examiner respectfully submits that the resonant circuit, when combined with the current control network of Wuthrich, would need to be connected at a node for the circuit to function properly); and
the second portion of the therapeutic current control network and a third portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising the at least one current control switch are connected via a third node (Fig. 5, nodes connect the switching portions of the circuit with the current control portion of the circuit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Liu so that the energy storage capacitor and a first portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising a patient load are connected via a first node; the first portion of the therapeutic current control network and a second portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising the resonant electrical circuit are connected via a second node; and the second portion of the therapeutic current control network and at third portion of the therapeutic current control network comprising the at least one current control switch are connected via a third node, because doing so enables greater control of the current flowing through the circuit.
Regarding claim 85, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches:
a battery (fig. 5: capacitor 510); and
a bidirectional charging control network (fig. 5: step-up converter410 and step down converter 420), comprising:
a first circuit connected with the battery, and a second circuit connected with the energy storage capacitor (paragraph [0066], "Rapid-discharge energy storage device 320 is implemented in the circuit of FIG. 5 by capacitor 510. Output energy storage device 430 is implemented by output capacitor 560").
Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses a transformer, connected with the first circuit and the second circuit, for use in storing first energy from the battery and in transferring at least a portion of the stored first energy to the energy storage capacitor, and for use in storing second energy from the energy storage capacitor and transferring at least a portion of the stored second energy to the battery.
However, Liu teaches a resonant power converter (Abstract) comprising a transformer (Fig. 6: transformer 103), connected with the first circuit and the second circuit (Fig. 6: connected with circuit 102 and 104), for use in storing first energy from the battery and in transferring at least a portion of the stored first energy to the energy storage capacitor (Fig. 6: transformer transfers energy from battery and capacitor Cr to capacitor Cf), and for use in storing second energy from the energy storage capacitor and in transferring at least a portion of the stored second energy to the battery (Fig. 6: transformer transfers energy from capacitor Cf to battery and capacitor Cr).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Liu to further include a transformer, connected with the first circuit and the second circuit, for use in storing first energy from the battery and in transferring at least a portion of the stored first energy to the energy storage capacitor, and for use in storing second energy from the energy storage capacitor and in transferring at least a portion of the stored second energy to the battery, because doing so allows for efficient energy transfer (Liu, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 106, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches:
a bidirectional charging control network (fig. 5), comprising:
a first circuit, connected with a battery (fig. 5: capacitor 510),
wherein the bidirectional charging control network is configured to operate in a forward mode in a buck capacity (paragraph [0066], "Step-down converter 410 is implemented by buck transistor (hereafter, buck switch) 515, buck diode 520, inductor 530, and capacitor 560"), and in a reverse mode in a boost capacity (paragraph [0066], "Step-up converter 420 is implemented by boost transistor (hereafter, boost switch) 540, boost diode 550, inductor 530, and capacitor 560"), and wherein:
in the forward mode, energy flows from the battery to the energy storage capacitor for storage by the energy storage capacitor, and in the reverse mode, energy flows from the energy storage capacitor to the battery for storage by the battery (paragraph [0066], "Rapid-discharge energy storage device 320 is implemented in the circuit of FIG. 5 by capacitor 510. Output energy storage device 430 is implemented by output capacitor 560. Step-down converter410 is implemented by buck transistor (hereafter, buck switch) 515, buck diode 520, inductor 530, and capacitor 560. Step-up converter 420 is implemented by boost transistor (hereafter, boost switch) 540, boost diode 550, inductor 530, and capacitor 560.": Examiner respectfully submits that switching of the buck/boost converter moves energy in different directions around the circuit).
Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses a transformer, connected with the first circuit and the second circuit, for use in storing first energy from the battery and in transferring at least a portion of the stored first energy to the energy storage capacitor, and for use in storing second energy from the energy storage capacitor and transferring at least a portion of the stored second energy to the battery.
However, Liu teaches a resonant power converter (Abstract) comprising a transformer circuit, connected with the first circuit, wherein the transformer circuit is connected with the energy storage capacitor (Fig. 6: transformer 103 is connected with circuit 102 and 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Liu to further include a transformer circuit, connected with the first circuit, wherein the transformer circuit is connected with the energy storage capacitor, because doing so allows for efficient energy transfer (Liu, paragraph [0003]).
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and Liu et al. (US 2019/0068068 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Moulder et al. (US 2005/0085862 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Moulder.
Regarding claim 80, the system of claim 78 is obvious over Wuthrich, Schwalbe, and Liu, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich, nor Schwalbe, nor Liu explicitly discloses that the first portion of the therapeutic current control network comprises a filter and at least one polarity control switch.
However, Moulder teaches a stimulation system (paragraph [0042]) wherein the first portion of the therapeutic current control network comprises a filter and at least one polarity control switch (paragraph [0076], “The H-bridge 210 includes bridge halves, or legs, 212, 214, and 216. Leg 212 includes polarity control switch 220 and modulating switch 222. Leg 214 includes polarity switch 230 and modulating switch 232. Similarly, leg 216 includes polarity switch 240 and modulating switch 242. Coupled across adjacent legs is a filter capacitor. Hence, filter capacitor 250 is coupled between legs 212 and 214, filter capacitor 260 is coupled between leg 214 and 216, and filter capacitor 270 is coupled between leg 216 and 212. Across the filter capacitors are outputs 280, 290, and 300.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich, Schwalbe, and Liu with the teachings of Moulder so that the first portion of the therapeutic current control network comprises a filter and at least one polarity control switch, because doing so allows for flexibility in providing the desired waveform to the patient (Moulder, paragraph [0077]).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, Liu et al. (US 2019/0068068 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Liu, and Moulder et al. (US 2005/0085862 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Moulder, and further in view of Gliner et al. (US Patent 5,593,427, previously cited), hereinafter Gliner.
Regarding claim 82, the system of claim 80 is obvious over Wuthrich, Schwalbe, Liu, and Moulder, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich, nor Schwalbe, nor Liu, nor Moulder explicitly discloses that the at least one polarity control switch and the patient load are connected via a fourth node and a fifth node.
However, Gliner teaches an external defibrillator (Abstract) wherein the at least one polarity control switch and the patient load are connected via a fourth node and a fifth node (Fig. 11, column 7, lines 5-11, “After charging the capacitor, controller 70 deactivates supply 72 and activates biphase switch timer 84. Timer 84 initiates discharge of the first phase of the biphasic waveform through the patient in a first polarity by simultaneously turning on switches SW1 and SW4 via control signals Tl and T4, while switch SW5 remains on to deliver the initial voltage A through electrodes80 and 82 to the patient 78”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich, Schwalbe, Liu, Zhang and Moulder with the teachings of Gliner so that the at least one polarity control switch and the patient load are connected via a fourth node and a fifth node, because doing so allows multiple energy settings to be selected by the user for different patients while also maximizing energy efficiency (Gliner, column 2, lines 16-30).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and Liu et al. (US 2019/0068068 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Dearden et al. (US 2015/0028806 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Dearden.
Regarding claim 83, the system of claim 78 is obvious over Wuthrich, Schwalbe, and Liu, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich, nor Schwalbe, nor Liu explicitly discloses that the at least one current control switch comprises a high voltage MOSFET switch.
However, Dearden teaches a charger for an implantable device (paragraph [0003]) wherein the at least one current control switch comprises a high voltage MOSFET switch (paragraph [0067], “In some embodiments, the class E driver 504, can be an efficient circuit, which efficiency can be obtained by switching an active element (typically a FET, including a MOSFET) of the class E driver 504 fully on or off to thereby avoid the linear region of operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich, Schwalbe, and Liu with the teachings of Dearden so that the at least one current control switch comprises a high voltage MOSFET switch, because doing so improves efficiency of the switch (Dearden, paragraph [0067]).
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Denison (US 2008/0180278 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 84, the system of claim 76 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses that the driver circuit is configured as a cascode switch driver circuit.
However, Denison teaches a chopper stabilized instrumentation amplifier (Abstract) wherein the driver circuit is configured as a cascode switch driver circuit (paragraph [0061], “Modulator 28 may comprise switches, e.g., CMOS SPOT switches, located at low impedance nodes within a folded-cascade architecture of mixer amplifier 14.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Denison so that the driver circuit is configured as a cascade switch driver circuit, because doing so enables switching at low impedance, which enables chopping at higher frequencies where the only limitation would be the charge injection residual offset (Denison, paragraph [0047]).
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and Liu et al. (US 2019/0068068 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Weerakoon et al. (US 2020/0305744 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Weerakoon.
Regarding claim 86, the system of claim 85 is obvious over Wuthrich, Schwalbe, and Liu as explained above. Neither Wuthrich, nor Schwalbe, nor Liu explicitly discloses that at least one of the first circuit and the second circuit comprises at least one clamp circuit.
However, Weerakoon teaches an implantable pulse generator (Abstract) wherein at least one of the first circuit and the second circuit comprises at least one clamp circuit (paragraphs [0070], [0079], “Sense amp circuit 210 is similar to sense amp circuit 200, and includes clamp circuits 142+ and 142- and DC-level shifting circuits 143+ and 143- as described earlier.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Weerakoon so that at least one of the first circuit and the second circuit comprises at least one clamp circuit, because doing so prevents damage to or improper operation of the sense amp circuit (Weerakoon, paragraph [0070]).
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Canales et al. (WO 2017001024 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Canales.
Regarding claim 97, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Wuthrich further teaches wherein the therapeutic current control network comprises a patient relay circuit used in control of allowing current flow through a patient load (Fig. 1: patient isolation relay 185), wherein the patient relay circuit comprises at least one patient relay switch (paragraph [0066], "Patient isolation relay 185 is implemented by switches 582 and 584 (which may be any of a variety of electrical or mechanical switches").
Wuthrich does not explicitly disclose that the at least one patient relay switch comprises at least one of silicon carbide or gallium nitride.
However, Canales teaches a multilevel electrical converter (Abstract) comprising switches comprising silicon carbide or gallium nitride (page 8, lines 28-31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Canales so that the at least one patient relay switch comprises at least one of silicon carbide or gallium nitride, because silicon carbide (and other wide-bandgap materials) are suitable for high switching frequencies with low losses (Canales, page 9, lines 1-4).
Claim 394 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Brink (US 5725560 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 394, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe discloses that the at least one controller is configured to control the switching frequency of the at least one current control switch to use closed loop control to deliver the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform being delivered to the patient such that the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform corresponds with the predetermined waveform.
However, Brink teaches a defibrillator (Abstract) wherein the at least one controller is configured to control the switching frequency of the at least one current control switch to use closed loop control to deliver the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform being delivered to the patient such that the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform corresponds with the predetermined waveform (Fig. 9, column 4, line 46-column 5, line 14; column 3, lines 18-27; column 5, lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Brink so that the at least one controller is configured to control the switching frequency of the at least one current control switch to use closed loop control to deliver the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform being delivered to the patient such that the electrotherapeutic defibrillation waveform corresponds with the predetermined waveform, because doing so enables the device to automatically determine a different waveform for each individual patient instead of using the same waveform for every patient, resulting a more effective, personalized defibrillation waveform for each patient (Brink, column 1, lines 22-40).
Claim 394 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Paull et al. (US 4590943 A, previously cited), hereinafter Paull.
Regarding claim 399, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses a rectifier configured for use in conversion of alternating current to direct current.
However, Paull teaches a system for providing battery power to a portable defibrillator (Abstract) comprising a rectifier configured for use in conversion of alternating current to direct current (Fig. 6, column 4, lines 42-49, rectifier 110).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Paull to include a rectifier configured for use in conversion of alternating current to direct current, because doing so allows the system to receive either AC or DC power, which significantly enhances the usefulness and versatility of the defibrillator and its associated power supply system, particularly in connection with its use in aid cars and related emergency medical services (Paull, column 4, lines 57-61).
Claim 404 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuthrich (US 2003/0074025 A1, previously cited) in view of Schwalbe et al. (US 20200121939 A1), hereinafter Schwalbe, and further in view of Moulder et al. (US 2005/0085862 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Moulder.
Regarding claim 404, the system of claim 1 is obvious over Wuthrich and Schwalbe, as explained above. Neither Wuthrich nor Schwalbe explicitly discloses that the therapeutic current control network comprises at least one polarity control switch nodally connected with the filter and configured for use in controlling direction of current flow of the electrotherapeutic current delivered to the patient.
However, Moulder teaches a stimulation system (paragraph [0042]) comprising at least one polarity control switch nodally connected with the filter (paragraph [0076], “The H-bridge 210 includes bridge halves, or legs, 212, 214, and 216. Leg 212 includes polarity control switch 220 and modulating switch 222. Leg 214 includes polarity switch 230 and modulating switch 232. Similarly, leg 216 includes polarity switch 240 and modulating switch 242. Coupled across adjacent legs is a filter capacitor. Hence, filter capacitor 250 is coupled between legs 212 and 214, filter capacitor 260 is coupled between leg 214 and 216, and filter capacitor 270 is coupled between leg 216 and 212. Across the filter capacitors are outputs 280, 290, and 300.”) and configured for use in controlling direction of current flow of the electrotherapeutic current delivered to the patient (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Wuthrich and Schwalbe with the teachings of Moulder to further include at least one polarity control switch, wherein the filter and the at least one polarity control switch are connected via a thirteenth node and a fourteenth node, because doing so allows for flexibility in providing the desired waveform to the patient (Moulder, paragraph [0077]).
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 CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights