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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 March 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 8) in the reply filed on 06 June 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 June 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grill et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0022993).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torgerson (US PGPUB 2019/0105499 – previously cited) in view of Khair (US PGPUB 2020/0000355 – previously cited), and further in view of Grill et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0022993).
Regarding claims 1 – 3, Torgerson discloses a system, comprising: a memory (e.g. Fig. 2; 211); and a processor that executes instructions stored in memory (e.g. Fig. 2; 210), wherein the processor: generates a model and determines updated one or more electrostatics parameters based on feedback responsive to an electrical stimulation therapy employing an initial one or more electrostatics parameters on the entity (e.g. ¶ 103 – 104; the patient feedback reads on the feedback).
Torgerson discloses determining the initial one or more electrostatics parameters based on an initial physical-based model based on an ideal entity and generating an initial physical-based model based on an ideal entity, wherein updating the initial model generates the model (e.g. ¶ 69 – 70).
Torgerson fails to teach that the feedback comprises one or more differentials between a specified electrical output requested and received by the processor and an actual electrical output produced, wherein the one or more differentials are one or more observed patterns from the produced electrical output. Torgerson also fails to teach the one or more differentials are construed for one or more locations not directly at a location of the specified electrical output requested and received by the processor.
Khair teaches it is known to use a closed-loop, self-calibrating system wherein the feedback comprises one or more differentials between a specified electrical output requested and received by the processor and an actual electrical output produced, wherein the one or more differentials are one or more observed patterns from the produced electrical output (e.g. ¶ 246; #8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Torgerson with the feedback system as taught by Khair, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of effectively correcting the parameters automatically based on the actual output compared to the desired result.
Grill teaches it is known to use the Poisson model to determine a physical-based model of stimulation (e.g. ¶ 37, 44). Because the Poisson model is used along with an internal feedback-driven algorithm, it is clear that the differentials are construed for one or more locations not directly at a location of the specified electrical output requested and received by the processor.
Regarding claim 4, Torgerson discloses the performing a recalibration of an initial physical-based model to generate the model, and wherein the recalibration is performed between a determination of the initial one or more electrostatics parameters and the determination of the updated one or more electrostatics parameters (e.g. ¶ 69 – 70).
Regarding claim 5, Torgerson discloses the updated one or more electrostatics parameters are determined based on feedback relative to application of the electrical stimulation therapy being a neuromodulation therapy (e.g. ¶ 103 – 104).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Torgerson discloses the processor produces a produced electrical output to the entity by employing the updated one or more electrostatics parameters (e.g. Fig. 2; 202), wherein the produced electrical output matches a specified electrical output upon which the initial one or more electrostatics parameters were based (e.g. ¶ 103 – 104).
Regarding claim 8, Torgerson discloses the updated one or more electrostatics parameters define a supplementary electrode configuration for producing a supplementary electric field employing one or more electrodes at the entity (e.g. ¶ 114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796