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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10: “and tube is coated” in lines 3-4 should read --and the tube is coated--.
Claim 17: “or combination thereof” should read --and a combination thereof--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 15-17, 23, 27, 31, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the hypoglossal nerve” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one elongate device” in line 3, yet previously recites “an elongate device” in line 2. Since “at least one” encompasses one or more than one, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “at least one elongate device”.
Claim 1 recites “a capacitor” in lines 7-8, yet previously recites “a capacitor” in line 5. It is unclear whether the second capacitor is intended to be the different as that in line 5.
Claim 1 recites “the elongate device” in line 10, yet previously recites “an elongate device” and “the at least one elongate device”. It is unclear which previously recited elongate device(s) applicant intends to reference in line 10.
The term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the start of the next free resonance” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the free resonance”, while parent claim 1 recites “freely resonate during repetitive stimulations” and “the next free resonance”. Accordingly, it is unclear which instance of a free resonance applicant intends to reference in claim 5.
Claim 7 recites “the capacitor”, while parent claim 1 recites two instances of “a capacitor”. It is unclear which capacitor applicant intends to reference in claim 7.
Claim 10 recites “the second Zener diode” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the capacitor”, while parent claim 1 recites two instances of “a capacitor”. It is unclear which capacitor applicant intends to reference in claim 10,
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against the claims at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous clarity issues noted above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2018/071906 (Makansi): implanted wireless nerve stimulators (abstract)
US 2017/0072199 (Biele et al.): implanted wireless nerve stimulators comprising Zener diode, rectifying diode(s), and an external controller(s) (abstract; [0064]; [0082])
US 2019/0275328 (Zitnik et al.): implanted wireless nerve stimulators comprising resonant circuit(s) and Zener diode ([0166]; [0306])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791