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 .
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed December 17, 2025. Claims 22-43 are pending. Claims 1-21 have been canceled. Claims 22-23, 25, 27, 29 & 36 have been amended. New claim 43 has been added.
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.
Claim 43 is 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. While the original specification clearly show a device wherein: the single physiological signal input 708 of the signal limiter is directly connected to: a drain D of a first transistor 702 of the three transistors, and a gate of a third transistor 706 of the three transistors (see fig. 7 of the original specification), the original specification fails to explicitly teach a device wherein: the single physiological signal input 708 of the signal limiter is directly connected to: a drain of a second transistor 704 of the three transistors, and, a source of the second transistor 704 is directly connected to a source of the third transistor 706; and a drain of the third transistor 706 is directly connected to a gate of the second transistor 704. For example, the electrical diagram of fig. 7 of the original specification fails to disclose the source and drain of the second and third transistors (704, 706).
Moreover, the claim recites multiple elements (input signal 708, transistors 702, 704, 706) that are allegedly “directly connected” to each other; however, the specification, at fig. 7, upon which Applicant relies, clearly shows that the different elements (input signal 708, transistors 702, 704, 706) are only connected via electrical wiring and/or traces in an electrical circuit.
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.
Claim 43 is 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 multiple recitations of the term “directly connected” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bound of the term are; for example, it is unclear whether the single physiological signal input contacts or simultaneously contacts the drain of a first transistor, second transistor and gate of the third transistor without the intervening use of wires and/or electrical traces from an electrical circuit. For examination purposes, the term “directly connected” has been construed as --connected-- consistent with fig. 7 of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 22-23, 29, 36 & 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanasek (US 2010/0249867) in view of Kato (US 2007/0272759).
In regards to claim 22, Wanasek discloses a method, comprising:
providing a signal limiter having a threshold limit, wherein the signal limiter comprises a single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060);
PNG
media_image1.png
358
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and an interconnection of a plurality of transistors (130, 140) (see at least fig. 6 and par 0013-0016, 0029-0035 & 0058-0060);
while a stimulation signal (i.e., therapy, pacing, cardioversion, or defibrillation pulse) having a stimulation phase and a recharge phase (see at least fig. 11A) is being output from a first electrode (i.e., via electrodes coupled to one or
PNG
media_image2.png
249
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
more of leads 18, 20, and 22 and, in some cases, a housing electrode of ICD 16, see at least figs. 1-4 and par 0025 & 0027) at a stimulation site (i.e., heart), sensing a physiological signal at a second electrode (i.e., via electrode(s) carried on one or more of leads 18, 20, 22, and, in some cases, a housing electrode of ICD 16, see at least figs. 1-4 and par 0028-0032) in proximity to the stimulation site (i.e., heart) via the single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060); and
PNG
media_image3.png
353
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
while sensing the physiological signal, limiting an amplitude of the physiological signal from the single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060) including limiting an amplitude of the stimulation phase and limiting a peak of the recharge phase by the signal limiter (i.e., via various embodiments of the sense amplifier 104 in figs. 6-10 comprising various transistors such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) to the threshold limit (see also at least abstract, figs. 5-11A-D, par 0027-0036 & 0047-0099).
Wanasek discloses a method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the signal limiter comprises an interconnection of three transistors.
However, Kato teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the signal limiter (see at least abstract and figs. 1A & 5A-C) comprises a single signal input (Vin) and an interconnection of three transistors (i.e., the number of diode-connected
PNG
media_image4.png
170
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
transistors is not limited to two in the invention, and three or more diode-connected transistors may be connected in series as well, see par 0097) (see at least abstract and par 0083-0101).
Therefore, since both Wanasek and Kato describe limiters for clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage (see at least abstract and par 0056 & 0059 of Wanasek and at least par 0005 of Kato), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Wanasek wherein the signal limiter an interconnection of three transistors as taught by taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., using limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wanasek) ready for improvement, or alternatively, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., each limiter 130, 140 as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to obtain predictable results such as clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage regardless of an inputted voltage (see at least par 0005 of Kato) so as to provide a limiter, in which the mechanical strength of an inexpensive integrated circuit can be increased while maintaining the circuit scale, capable of controlling a limit voltage with accuracy (see at least par 0011 & 0101 of Kato)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 23, Wanasek discloses a device, comprising:
a sensing electrode (i.e., electrode(s) carried on one or more of leads 18, 20, 22, and, in some cases, a housing electrode of ICD 16) (see at least figs. 1-4 and par 0029);
a signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) comprising a single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT), a signal output, (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060) and an interconnection of a plurality of transistors (130, 140) (see at least fig. 6 and par 0013-0016, 0029-0035 & 0058-0060);
an electrically conductive pathway connected between the sensing electrode and the single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060) of the signal limiter (see at least figs. 6-10); and
PNG
media_image5.png
625
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a sensing amplifier (i.e., instrumentation amplifier(s) and/or gain amplifier(s) shown in figs. 6-10) electrically coupled to the signal output (see fig. 6) of the signal limiter and the signal limiter so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6) to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6) to the threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation
PNG
media_image2.png
249
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
phase amplitude and a peak of an active recharge phase passing from the signal limiter (see also at least abstract, figs. 5-11A-D, par 0027-0036 & 0047-0099).
Wanasek discloses a device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a signal limiter comprising an interconnection of three transistors.
However, Kato teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a signal limiter (see at least abstract and figs. 1A & 5A-C) comprising a single signal input (Vin) and an interconnection of three transistors (i.e., the number of diode-connected
PNG
media_image4.png
170
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
transistors is not limited to two in the invention, and three or more diode-connected transistors may be connected in series as well, see par 0097) (see at least abstract and par 0083-0101).
Therefore, since both Wanasek and Kato describe limiters for clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage (see at least abstract and par 0056 & 0059 of Wanasek and at least par 0005 of Kato), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek comprising a signal limiter comprising an interconnection of three transistors as taught by taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., using limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wanasek) ready for improvement or alternatively, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., each limiter 130, 140, as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to obtain predictable results such as to achieve a predictable result such as clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage regardless of an inputted voltage (see at least par 0005 of Kato) so as to provide a limiter, in which the mechanical strength of an inexpensive integrated circuit can be increased while maintaining the circuit scale, capable of controlling a limit voltage with accuracy (see at least par 0011 & 0101 of Kato)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 29, Wanasek discloses the method of Claim 22, further comprising recording the physiological signal (i.e., in memory 92) including a portion occurring upon a recharge pulse of the active recharge phase settling (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0039 & 0055).
In regards to claim 36, Wanasek discloses a medical system comprising:
implantable medical device (16, 52) for sensing a physiological signal while stimulation therapy is being provided (see at least figs. 1-4);
one or more leads (16, 18) including a sensing electrode (i.e., electrode(s) carried on one or more of leads 18, 20, and 22 and, in some cases, a housing electrode of ICD 16, see at least figs. 1-4 and par 0025 & 0027);
wherein the implantable medical system is coupled to the one or more leads (16, 18) (see at least figs. 1-4); and
wherein the implantable medical device (16, 52) further comprises:
a signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) comprising a single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT), a signal output, (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060) and an interconnection of a plurality of transistors (130, 140) (see at least fig. 6 and par 0013-0016, 0029-0035 & 0058-0060);
PNG
media_image5.png
625
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
an electrically conductive pathway connected between the sensing electrode and the single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060) of the signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065);
a sensing amplifier (i.e., instrumentation amplifier(s) and/or gain amplifier(s) shown in figs. 6-10) electrically coupled to signal output of the signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065);
wherein a physiological signal including an amplitude of a stimulation phase and a peak of an active recharge phase passing from the signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) to the sensing amplifier (i.e., instrumentation amplifier(s) and/or gain amplifier(s) shown in figs. 6-10) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., various transistors in figs. 6-10 from different embodiments of the sensor amplifier 104 such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) to the threshold limit (i.e., an example threshold value may be within a range of approximately 20 mV to approximately 500 mV and may be selected as approximately 420 mV) (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0029-0030, 0060-0067 & 0091-0100).
Wanasek discloses a medical system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a medical system comprising a signal limiter comprising an interconnection of three transistors.
However, Kato teaches that it is known to provide a medical system comprising a signal limiter (see at least abstract and figs. 1A & 5A-C) comprising a single signal input (Vin) and an interconnection of three transistors (i.e., the number of diode-
PNG
media_image4.png
170
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
connected transistors is not limited to two in the invention, and three or more diode-connected transistors may be connected in series as well, see par 0097) (see at least abstract and par 0083-0101).
Therefore, since both Wanasek and Kato describe limiters for clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage (see at least abstract and par 0056 & 0059 of Wanasek and at least par 0005 of Kato), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical system of Wanasek comprising a signal limiter comprising an interconnection of three transistors as taught by taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., using limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wanasek) ready for improvement or alternatively, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., each limiter 130, 140, as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to obtain predictable results such as to achieve a predictable result such as clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage regardless of an inputted voltage (see at least par 0005 of Kato) so as to provide a limiter, in which the mechanical strength of an inexpensive integrated circuit can be increased while maintaining the circuit scale, capable of controlling a limit voltage with accuracy (see at least par 0011 & 0101 of Kato)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 42, while Wanasek discloses a device comprising a single physiological signal input (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) wherein the single physiological signal input of the signal limiter is directly connected to each transistor of the plurality of transistors (130, 140) (see fig. 6 and par 0057-0060), Wanasek discloses a device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the single physiological signal input of the signal limiter is directly connected to each transistor of the three transistors. However, Kato teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the single signal input (Vin) of the signal limiter is directly connected to each transistor of the
PNG
media_image4.png
170
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
three transistors (i.e., the number of diode-connected transistors is not limited to two in the invention, and three or more diode-connected transistors may be connected in series as well, see par 0097) (see at least abstract and par 0083-0101). Therefore, since both Wanasek and Kato describe limiters for clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage (see at least abstract and par 0056 & 0059 of Wanasek and at least par 0005 of Kato), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek wherein the single physiological signal input of the signal limiter thereof is directly connected to each transistor of the three transistors as taught by taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., using limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Wanasek) ready for improvement, or alternatively, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., each limiter 130, 140, as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiters connected in series as taught by Kato) to obtain predictable results such as clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage regardless of an inputted voltage (see at least par 0005 of Kato) so as to provide a limiter, in which the mechanical strength of an inexpensive integrated circuit can be increased while maintaining the circuit scale, capable of controlling a limit voltage with accuracy (see at least par 0011 & 0101 of Kato)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 24-28, 30-35 & 37-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanasek (US 2010/0249867) in view of Kato (US 2007/0272759) further in view of Ellingson (US 2012/0108908).
In regards to claim 24, Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the method of Claim 22, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts at least from the stimulation phase. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts at least from the stimulation phase (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts at least from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts at least from the stimulation phase as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 25, while Kato discloses a method wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal via a signal output (Vout) of the signal limiter (see at least abstract and figs. 1A & 5A-C), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the method of Claim 24, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal and the method further comprising: receiving, by a circuit, the limited signal from the signal limiter; wherein the circuit includes one or more of a filter and an amplifier; and wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the circuit is not saturated. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal and the method further comprising: receiving, by a circuit, the limited signal from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter); wherein the circuit includes one or more of a filter and an amplifier; and wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller 60 such that the circuit is not saturated (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected such that the circuit is not saturated (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal and the method further comprising: receiving, by a circuit, the limited signal from the signal limiter; wherein the circuit includes one or more of a filter and an amplifier; and wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the circuit is not saturated as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 26, Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the method of Claim 22, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller 60 to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device and method wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the active recharge phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts, as taught by Ellingson, from the active recharge phase as taught by Wanasek since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 27, while Kato discloses a method wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal via a signal output (Vout) of the signal limiter (see at least abstract and figs. 1A & 5A-C), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the method of claim 26, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal and further comprising: receiving, by a circuit, the limited signal from the signal limiter; wherein the circuit includes one or more of a filter and an amplifier; and wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the circuit is not saturated. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal and further comprising: receiving, by a circuit, the limited signal from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter); wherein the circuit includes one or more of a filter and an amplifier; and wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the circuit is not saturated (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected such that the circuit is not saturated (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the signal limiter outputs a limited signal and further comprising: receiving, by a circuit, the limited signal from the signal limiter; wherein the circuit includes one or more of a filter and an amplifier; and wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the circuit is not saturated as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 28, Wanasek discloses the method of Claim 27, wherein a tail of the recharge phase of the limited signal from the signal limiter (i.e., via various embodiments of the sense amplifier 104 in figs. 6-10 comprising various transistors such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) is less than the threshold limit (i.e., an example threshold value may be within a range of approximately 20 mV to approximately 500 mV and may be selected as approximately 420 mV) (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0029-0030, 0060-0067 & 0091-0100).
In regards to claim 30, while Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 6 & 11A and par 0029-0030 & 0034), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the device of claim 23, that fails to explicitly teach a device further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a device further comprising a controller 60 that is coupled to the signal limiter 42 and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to set a threshold limit so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit, as taught by Ellingson, so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter, as taught by Kato, to the sensing amplifier of Wanasek, are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, as taught by Kato, wherein the threshold limit, as taught by Wanasek, is selected by the controller, as taught by Ellingson, to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase as taught by Wanasek since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 31, Wanasek discloses the device of claim 30, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected such that the circuit is not saturated (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 32, while Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 6 & 11A and par 0029-0030 & 0034), wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the device of claim 23, that fails to explicitly teach a device further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a device further comprising a controller 60 that is coupled to the signal limiter 42 and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to set a threshold limit so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit, as taught by Ellingson, so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter, as taught by Kato, to the sensing amplifier of Wanasek, are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, as taught by Kato, wherein the threshold limit, as taught by Wanasek, is selected by the controller, as taught by Ellingson, to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase as taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 33, Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the device of claim 32, that fails to explicitly teach a device wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller 60 such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 34, Wanasek discloses the device of claim 33, wherein a tail of the recharge phase of the signal passing from the signal limiter (i.e., via various embodiments of the sense amplifier 104 in figs. 6-10 comprising various transistors such as transistors 130, 140, 172, 176 in fig. 6 and par 0033 & 0056-0065) to the sensing amplifier is less than the threshold limit (i.e., an example threshold value may be within a range of approximately 20 mV to approximately 500 mV and may be selected as approximately 420 mV) (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0029-0030, 0060-0067 & 0091-0100).
In regards to claim 35, while Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 6 & 11A and par 0029-0030 & 0034), wherein a controller 90 records the physiological signal including a portion occurring upon a recharge pulse of the recharge phase settling (see at least fig. 5 and par 0048, 0050 & 0055), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the device of claim 23, that fails to explicitly teach a device further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a device further comprising a controller 60 that is coupled to the signal limiter 42 and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to set a threshold limit so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060), wherein the controller 60 records the physiological signal (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Wanasek as modified by Kato further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit, as taught by Ellingson, so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter, as taught by Kato, to the sensing amplifier of Wanasek, are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, as taught by Kato, wherein a controller 90 records the physiological signal including a portion occurring upon a recharge pulse of the recharge phase settling as taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 37, while Kato teaches that it is known to provide a medical system wherein a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 6 & 11A and par 0029-0030 & 0034), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the medical system of claim 23, that fails to explicitly teach a device further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a medical system further comprising a controller 60 that is coupled to the signal limiter 42 and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to set a threshold limit so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060), wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a medical system wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical system of Wanasek as modified by Kato further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit, as taught by Ellingson, so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter, as taught by Kato, to the sensing amplifier of Wanasek, are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, as taught by Kato, wherein the threshold limit, as taught by Wanasek, is selected by the controller, as taught by Ellingson, to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase as taught by Wanasek since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 38, Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the system of claim 37, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected such that the circuit is not saturated (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 39, while Kato teaches that it is known to provide a medical system wherein a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 6 & 11A and par 0029-0030 & 0034), wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the medical system of claim 23, that fails to explicitly teach a medical system further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a medical system further comprising a controller 60 that is coupled to the signal limiter 42 and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to set a threshold limit so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical system of Wanasek as modified by Kato further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit, as taught by Ellingson, so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter, as taught by Kato, to the sensing amplifier of Wanasek, are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, as taught by Kato, wherein the threshold limit, as taught by Wanasek, is selected by the controller, as taught by Ellingson, to reduce artifacts from the recharge phase as taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 40, Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the medical system of claim 39, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Wanasek as modified by Kato wherein the threshold limit is selected by the controller such that the sensing amplifier is not saturated as taught by Ellingson since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 41, while Kato teaches that it is known to provide a medical system wherein a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 6 & 11A and par 0029-0030 & 0034), wherein a controller 90 records the physiological signal including a portion occurring upon a recharge pulse of the recharge phase settling (see at least fig. 5 and par 0048, 0050 & 0055), Wanasek as modified by Kato discloses the medical system of claim 23, that fails to explicitly teach a device further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit. However, Ellingson teaches that it is known to provide a medical system further comprising a controller 60 that is coupled to the signal limiter 42 and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to set a threshold limit so that signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) is limited by the signal limiter (i.e., anti-aliasing filter 79, amplifier 80, ADC 82, a signal limiter) to the threshold limit (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060), wherein the controller 60 records the physiological signal (see at least abstract, figs. 2-4 and par 0023-0027, 0034-0040 & 0048-0060). Therefore, since Wanasek teaches that it is known to provide a device wherein signal amplitude passing from the signal limiter to the sensing amplifier is limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit (i.e., when the front end of the sense amplifier uses a pair of transistors coupled to the inputs) (see at least par 0034); wherein the threshold limit is selected to reduce artifacts from the stimulation phase (see at least figs. 11A & 11C-D and par 0091-0100), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the medical system of Wanasek as modified by Kato further comprising a controller that is coupled to the signal limiter and that provides an electrical signal to the signal limiter to set a threshold limit, as taught by Ellingson, so that a signal including a stimulation phase amplitude and a peak of a recharger phase passing from the signal limiter, as taught by Kato, to the sensing amplifier of Wanasek, are limited by the signal limiter to the threshold limit, as taught by Kato, wherein a controller 90 records the physiological signal including a portion occurring upon a recharge pulse of the recharge phase settling as taught by Kato since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Wanasek) for another (i.e., the limiting technique as taught by Ellingson) to obtain predictable results such as obtaining a more detailed representation of the physiological signals, including the noise components of the physiological signals caused by the interfering signal (see at least abstract of Ellingson)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office notes that the thrust of the prior rejections remains the same. Applicant contends that the Office “has not shown why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the circuit of Wanasek with the transistors in series of Kato by mere ‘simple substitution’.” In light thereof, the Applicant then proceeds to contrast the type of transistor of Wanasek with that of Kato and concludes that such differences would not lead to a simple substitution of one transistor with another. The Office respectfully traverses.
First, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In fact, Applicant’s discussion of whether the signal is inputted through a source or a drain of the transistor clearly amounts to a mere discussion of “bodily incorporation” of the transistors connected in series as taught by Kato to the device of Wanasek in a manner that fails to account for the ordinary creativity and knowledge of a skilled artisan. Applicant’s argument thus treats the skilled artisan like a mere automaton contrary to KSR, which states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (see MPEP § 2141.03). Applicant’s argument thus fails to acknowledge that the particularity raised in explaining the differences between the transistors of Wanasek and Kato may merely be a distinction between the types of transistors of Kato and Wanasek that are well understood in the art rather that an alleged incompatibility of the series of transistors of Kato in the electrical circuit of Wanasek. For example, both P-channel and N-channel transistors similarly clamp down on input signals as explained infra although said N-channel and P-channel transistors are differently connectable to an electrical circuit (see at least par 0046, 0084-0085 & 0092-0093 of Kato). Therefore, the fact that two types of transistors are differently connectable to an electrical circuit (i.e., one through an input connected to a drain and another through an input connected to a source, or vice-versa) does not in any way mean that the two types of transistors are incompatible substitutes of each other as illustrated by the alternative use of N-channel and P-channel transistors and contrary to the Applicant’s argument. The Office thus submits that Applicant has clearly failed to discuss the actual combination provided in the Office action but has rather focused on addressing alleged differences between how the limiters (transistors) connected in series by Kato and the limiter of Wanasek would be connected onto an electrical circuit such as the electrical circuit of Wanasek shown in fig. 6 thereof. The Applicant’s argument thus consists of bodily incorporating the features (i.e., the transistors connected in series) of the secondary reference of Kato into the structure of the primary reference of Wanasek and thus fails to consider “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art,” which is to provide a device as taught by Wanasek comprising a plurality of transistors connected in series as taught by Kato into the device of Wanasek, wherein alternatively said provision is in lieu of the single transistor of Wanasek, for clamping an input voltage (N_INPUT, P_INPUT) from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage regardless of an inputted voltage (see at least par 0005 of Kato) so as to provide a limiter, in which the mechanical strength of an inexpensive integrated circuit can be increased while maintaining the circuit scale, capable of controlling a limit voltage with accuracy (see at least par 0011 & 0101 of Kato).
Second, the Office notes that the Office action is clearly aligned with the KSR-precedent, which establishes the obviousness of substituting likes for likes. Applicant’s argument essentially questions the Supreme Court precedent itself! For example, in the instant case, as explained in the Office action, both Wanasek and Kato describe limiters for clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage (see at least abstract and par 0056 & 0059 of Wanasek and at least par 0005 of Kato); therefore, according to KSR, it would have been an obvious expedient to a skilled artisan to substitute the limiter of Wanasek with that of the transistors connected in series of Kato. Notwithstanding, in the instant Office action, the Office has also added further motivation such as “clamping an input voltage from high voltage delivered to the device so as to protect the device from damage regardless of an inputted voltage (see at least par 0005 of Kato) so as to provide a limiter, in which the mechanical strength of an inexpensive integrated circuit can be increased while maintaining the circuit scale, capable of controlling a limit voltage with accuracy (see at least par 0011 & 0101 of Kato).”
Third, Applicant has failed to show that the Office substitution is not a simple substitution to obtain a predictable result. For example, Office notes that whether a signal is fed into and/or out of the transistor through a drain of the transistor is completely immaterial to the substitution itself (also, such a distinction is merely illustrative of the type of transistor being used as explained supra). However, what’s important is that a signal having a voltage Vin (i.e., from N_INPUT or P_INPUT) is fed into an input terminal (i.e., drain or source) of the transistor series and thus a voltage Vout at an output terminal (i.e., drain or source) of said transistor series is held to no more than a limit voltage as shown at least at figs. 5A-C and par 0007 of Kato such that, in the combination, the output terminal Vout of each of said set of transistors connected in series (i.e., one set of transistors connected in series for each one of transistors 130, 140) is coupled a corresponding input of instrumentation amplifier 150 through resistors 132, 134 and 142, 144, respectively, shown at least at fig. 6 and par 0057-0060 of Wanasek.
Applicant now contends that modifying Wanasek with Kato as explained in the Office action changes the principle of operation of Wanasek because Wanasek allegedly cannot shunt too much energy from delivered pacing pulses or cardioversion shocks without reducing therapeutic efficacy of those delivered electrical stimuli. Applicant further contends that the limiter of Kato would shunt energy away from the heart and the ground of the device, thereby allegedly changing the principle of operation of the device of Wanasek and rendering the device of Wanasek unable to deliver therapy to the patient. The Office respectfully traverses.
First, the Office notes that Applicant provides no evidence for the Applicant’s assertions, which amount to mere attorney arguments based on a deliberate misinterpretation of the Office action.
However, MPEP, section 2145 (I) clearly stipulates:
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Second, Applicant’s argument are mere bodily incorporations that fail to consider the combination of references as plainly explained in the last Office action and repeated supra. In fact, the only principle of operation evident in Wanasek vis-à-vis the limiter, to the extent that there is one, is that the limiter would be applied to the Front End 122 of the circuit to limit the voltage from the input so as to protect the Back End 160 of the circuit shown in fig. 6 thereof from high voltages (see par 0056 & 0059-0061).
Moreover, whether Wanasek, as alleged, cannot shunt too much energy from delivered pacing pulses or cardioversion shocks without reducing therapeutic efficacy of those delivered electrical stimuli or whether the limiter of Kato would shunt energy away from the heart and the ground of the device is completely immaterial to the combination in the Office action as Applicant clearly miscontrues the combination of references proposed in the Office action. For example, in the Office action, the voltage limiter of the combination, as taught by Kato, would only limit the voltage of the Front End 122 of Wanasek to the threshold limit as described in Wanasek (sere at least abstract, figs. 5-11A-D and par 0027-0036 & 0047-0099 thereof). Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments as to an alleged excessive shunting of energy away from the heart is not followed since the threshold limit of the combination is the same as that set forth by Wanasek.
In view of the foregoing, the rejections over at least Wanasek and Kato are maintained.
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.
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 extension fee 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 RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached on 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791