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
The amendment filed January 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 14, 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-13 were previously canceled. Currently, claims 14-21 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed January 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Roberts (US 2014/0210524).
Furthermore, applicant has amended claim 14 to recite, “wherein a trigger causes the calibration module to commence a calibration routine, wherein the trigger comprises a voltage value or a current value”. The phrase “comprises” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Applicant use of “comprises” does not preclude the interpretation of the trigger as being other values such as a length of time.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 has been amended to recite, “wherein a trigger causes the calibration module to commence a calibration routine”. This calibration routine is not currently linked to any other limitation of claim 14. If applicant intends for the calibration routine to be defined as “wherein the second clock is configured to periodically calibrate the first clock”, this calibration routine should be recited as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 14, 20 and 21 recite the limitation, “a current value” or “a current value threshold”. The interpretation of this limitation during prosecution is regarded as an electrical current value or electrical current value threshold, a pre-determined parameter in an RC circuit (para. [0130]), a stimulating output current (see para. [0138]) or a current signal from a sensor ([0143]) as described in the published application. It is not interpreted as a “present time” or “happening or being used or done now” value or value threshold.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faltys et al. (US 2011/0190849) in view of Bond et al. (US 2014/0371818) and Roberts (US 2014/0210524).
Regarding claim 14, Faltys et al. discloses a leadless, implantable microstimulator device comprising: a housing (“The POD may be constructed with a biocompatible and durable polymer” [0018]); at least two electrically conductive contacts disposed on the housing ([0019], [0021], [0037]; fig. 4); a microcontroller configured to control stimulation of a vagus nerve from the electrically conductive contacts ([0028], [0045], [0054], “MCU” [0156-0158], [0177]); a first clock to keep time ([0027], [0150]). Faltys et al. does not expressly disclose a second clock linked to a calibration module and having more accurate time-keeping capabilities than the first clock, wherein the second clock is configured to periodically calibrate the first clock, wherein a trigger causes the calibration module to commence a calibration routine, wherein the trigger comprises a voltage value or a current value.
Bond et al. also teaches a leadless, implantable microstimulator device comprising a first clock configured to keep time (“a system clock”); and a second clock (“a reference clock”) having more accurate time-keeping capabilities than the first clock (“system clock…may be a low-power oscillator that suffers from inaccuracies due to poor long-term stability, temperature characteristics, and trim resolution… reference clock may be a high accuracy oscillator”), and wherein the second clock is configured to periodically calibrate the first clock (“The calibration circuitry periodically performs a calibration routine to calibrate the system clock based on the reference clock” [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faltys et al. to include a second clock having more accurate time-keeping capabilities than the first clock, wherein the second clock is configured to periodically calibrate the first clock as taught by Bond et al. in order to provide low-power system clock during normal use while implementing a calibration routine with a higher-power, more accurate second clock, the routine reducing the clock error over time ([0051]) but also reduces total clocking system current drain ([0045], [0050]).
Roberts et al. also teaches calibrating a first clock 64 with a second clock 62 that is more accurate ([0043]), and further teaches wherein a trigger causes the calibration module to commence a calibration routine (“the calibration routine may be performed periodically following the lapse of a predetermined time interval, such as every five minutes or five hours or five days or five weeks” [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faltys et al. to implement a trigger to cause the calibration module to commence a calibration routine as taught by Roberts et al. in order to more consistently and timely calibrate the first clock with the second clock or when there is a detected error ([0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 15, Faltys et al. in view of Bond et al. discloses wherein the second clock module is configured to be in an idle mode when not calibrating the first clock (“the reference clock may be powered only during the calibration routine to correct inaccuracies of the system clock” [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Faltys et al. discloses a resonator ([0042]) comprising a coil and a capacitor configured to resonate at a predetermined frequency range, wherein an electronic assembly is configured to receive power from the resonator to charge a battery ([0052], [0196]).
Regarding claim 17, Faltys et al. in view of Bond et al. and Roberts et al. discloses wherein a control circuitry (“calibration circuitry”) is configured to be triggered by the trigger (“calibration period”; Roberts et al. [0080]) such that upon triggering, the control circuitry turns the second clock on, uses the second clock to calibrate the first clock, and then turns the second clock off ([0050-0051]).
Regarding claim 18, Faltys et al. in view of Bond et al. discloses wherein the control circuitry (“calibration circuitry”) is configured to correct a time drift of the first clock after the calibration is performed (“adjusting a trim value of the system clock to compensate for the clock error” [0051]).
Regarding claim 19, Faltys et al. in view of Roberts et al. discloses wherein the trigger comprises a preset signal programmed into the control circuitry (“a predetermined time interval, such as every five minutes or five hours or five days or five weeks” [0080]).
Regarding claim 20, Faltys et al. in view of Roberts et al. discloses wherein the preset signal is based on a set length of time (“a predetermined time interval, such as every five minutes or five hours or five days or five weeks” [0080]), the voltage value, or the current value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Faltys et al. (US 2011/0190849) in view of Bond et al. (US 2014/0371818) disclose all of the limitations of claim 21 except for a control circuitry is configured to be triggered by an event such that upon triggering, the control circuitry turns the second clock on, uses the second clock to calibrate the first clock, and then turns the second clock off, wherein the event comprises a preset signal programmed into the control circuitry, wherein the preset signal is based on a voltage value threshold or a current value threshold. Roberts (US 2014/0210524) discloses various types of preset signals to trigger the above second clock and first clock calibration routine but is also silent as to a preset signal based on a voltage value threshold or a current value threshold.
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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796