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 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 2-5, 14, 16, 23, and 27 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 2 recites the limitation “to supply pulse width modulation control signals”, while parent claim 1 recites “to supply pulse width modulation control signals”. It is unclear whether the pulse width modulation control signals are intended to be the same.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “plural switch modules” while parent claim 1 recites “plural switch modules”. It is unclear whether the plural switch modules are intended to be the same.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a stimulation signal” while parent claim 1 recites “a stimulation signal”. It is unclear whether the stimulation signal is intended to be the same.
The same issue appears in claim 19.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the DC supply circuit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 14, 15, 17-19, 22, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Weyh teaches a stimulation circuit for generating magnetic stimulation ([0001]; [0035]; [0081]; [0083]; claim 11), the stimulation circuit comprising:
a coil arrangement configured to apply magnetic stimulation to a body organ (claim 11);
a DC supply (Um) circuit arranged to provide a DC supply ([0117]-[0118]; Figure 14);
DC/AC inverter arranged to receive the DC supply and generate a stimulation signal which is supplied to the coil arrangement, wherein the DC/AC inverter comprises a bridge inverter stage comprising plural switch modules (1430, 1440 and 1450, 1460) connected in a bridge arrangement between input terminals (1410, 1420) at which the DC supply is received and output terminals for supplying the stimulation signal (power converter for stimulation coil, thus power supply output for stimulation signal: [0112]; [0118]; [0120]; Figure 14); and
a driver circuit arranged to supply pulse width modulation control signals to the switch modules that are selected to control the DC/AC inverter to generate the stimulation signal with pulse width modulation of voltage (pulse source for inductive stimulator/coil: [0120]; [0125]; [0129]; Figure 18; claim 5).
Regarding claim 2, Weyh teaches the driver circuit is arranged to supply pulse width modulation control signals to the switch modules that are selected to control the DC/AC inverter to generate the stimulation signal having a controllable desired waveform, frequency and amplitude by pulse width modulation of voltage ([0037]-[0038]; [0125]-[0126]; [0129]).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 11, Weyh teaches each switch module (1430, 1440 and 1450, 1460) comprises at least one switch; wherein each switch module comprises at least two switches connected in parallel; wherein the switch modules comprise diodes connected in anti-parallel across each switch; and wherein each switch is a semiconductor switch (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 14, Weyh teaches the bridge inverter stage comprises plural switch modules connected in an H-bridge arrangement between the DC supply circuit and output terminals (Um input and output of inverter is pulse source for stimulation coil, thus includes output terminals: [0112]; [0120]; [0125]; Figure 14).
Regarding claim 15, Weyh teaches the DC/AC inverter comprises a single bridge inverter stage (Figure 14).
Regarding claims 17-19, Weyh teaches the DC/AC inverter comprises a cascade of bridge inverter stages, the input terminals of each bridge inverter stage being connected to the DC supply to receive the DC supply, the output terminals of the bridge inverter stages being connected in series for supplying the stimulation signal with multiple voltage levels; wherein the DC supply circuit includes a capacitive energy stage comprising plural capacitive energy storage modules each arranged to supply the DC supply, each bridge inverter stage being connected to a respective capacitive energy storage module; and wherein the control signals are selected to control the DC/AC inverter to supply a stimulation signal with multi-level pulse width modulation of voltage ([0121]-[0122]; [0125]-[0126]; Figures 15-16; claims 14-16).
Regarding claim 22, Weyh teaches a stimulation circuit according to claim 1 (see discussion for claim 1), wherein the DC supply circuit comprises: a capacitive energy storage stage; and a charging circuit arranged to charge the capacitive energy storage stage (“charging circuit for charging said at least one capacitor”, claim 11).
Regarding claim 27, Weyh teaches a method of generating magnetic stimulation ([0001]; method, [0034]; [0035]; [0081]; [0083]; claim 1), the method comprising:
providing a DC supply (Um) ([0117]-[0118]; Figure 14);
controlling a DC/AC inverter, which comprises a bridge inverter stage comprising plural switch modules connected in a bridge arrangement between the DC supply circuit and output terminals, with pulse width modulation control signals to generate a stimulation signal with pulse width modulation (PWM) of voltage (power converter for stimulation coil, thus power supply output for stimulation signal: [0112]; [0118]; [0120]; Figure 14); and
supplying the stimulation signal to a coil arrangement configured to apply magnetic stimulation to a body organ (pulse source for inductive stimulator/coil: [0120]; [0125]; [0129]; Figure 18; claim 5).
Regarding claim 29, Weyh teaches a method of inducing an electromagnetic field in a body organ comprising: generating magnetic stimulation using a method according to claim 27; and applying the magnetic stimulation to the body organ (nerve and/or muscle tissue stimulated, [0034]; see discussion for claim 27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-5 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0307029 (Hargrove).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 28, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claim 2 or 27. Weyh teaches the driver circuit is arranged to generate the pulse width modulation control signals (see discussion for claim 2; [0120]; [0125]; [0129]; Figure 18; claim 5). Weyh does not teach the pulse width modulation control signals are based on a reference signal representing the desired arbitrary waveform, frequency and amplitude.
However, Hargrove teaches a stimulation circuit for generating magnetic stimulation (abstract), the stimulation circuit comprising: a driver circuit arranged to supply pulse width modulation control signals to be used to generate the stimulation signal with pulse width modulation of voltage (Figure 14; [0193]-[0195]); wherein the driver circuit is arranged to generate the pulse width control signals based on comparison of the waveforms of a reference signal and at least one carrier signal (carrier signal, [0144]-[0145]; [0166]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driver circuit of Weyh such that the pulse width modulation control signals are based on a reference signal representing the desired waveform, frequency and amplitude, wherein the control signals are based on comparison of the waveforms of the reference signal and at least one carrier signal as taught by Hargrove, in order to control the stimulation signal energy level to produce optimal stimulation to meet the patient’s needs (Hargrove: [0112]).
Regarding claim 5, Weyh in view of Hargrove teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Weyh as modified does not expressly state the driver circuit is arranged to accept user input specifying the desired waveform, frequency and amplitude.
However, Hargrove further teaches the driver circuit is arranged to accept user input specifying the desired waveform, frequency and amplitude (The limitation “to accept user input specifying the desired waveform, frequency and amplitude” is functional language. Since the system includes a user interface for selection of various stimulation parameters, the driver circuit is capable of performing the claimed function, see [0037] and [0133].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driver circuit of Weyh and Hargrove to be arranged to accept user input specifying the desired waveform, frequency and amplitude in light of the teachings of Hargrove in order to provide a customizable stimulation to meet the treatment needs of an individual patient.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,378 (Peterchev).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claims 6 and 8. Weyh does not specify the driver circuit comprises transient voltage suppression diodes connected across terminals of each switch; the driver circuit comprises current-balancing resistors connecting each switch to the driver circuit; wherein the switch modules comprise snubbing circuits connected in parallel with each switch; and wherein each switch is an insulated-gate bipolar transistor.
However, Peterchev teaches a stimulation circuit (abstract), comprising a driver circuit including current-balancing resistors (316, 322) connecting respective switch (Q1, Q2) modules to a driver circuit; wherein the switch modules comprise snubbing circuits (222, 223), including transient voltage suppression diodes (314, 320) connected across terminals of each switch module, and connected in parallel with each switch module (col. 7, lines 18-31; col. 10, lines 15-34; Figure 3A); wherein each switch is an insulated-gate bipolar transistor (col. 9, lines 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driver circuit of Weyh to include current-balancing resistors connecting each switch to the driver circuit, wherein the switch modules comprise snubbing circuits, including transient voltage suppression diodes connected across terminals of each switch module, and connected in parallel with each switch module connected in parallel with each switch as taught by Peterchev in order to “inhibit” and “prevent voltage overshoots” (Peterchev: col. 10, lines 15-34). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each switch of Weyh to be an insulated-gate bipolar transistor as taught by Peterchev, in order to help inhibit and prevent voltage overshoots (Peterchev: col. 9, lines 25-27).
Regarding claims 24-26, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Weyh does not specify the coil arrangement has an inductance of at most 32 µH, comprises a circular of figure-of-eight coil, and the stimulation signal as a peak current of at least 500 A and/or a peak voltage of at least 200 V.
However, Peterchev teaches a stimulation circuit comprising a figure-of-eight coil arrangement having an inductance of at most 32 µH (16.4 µH, col. 11, lines 47-53), with a stimulation signal as a peak current of at least 500 A and/or a peak voltage of at least 200 V (“cTMS system employs maximum positive and negative capacitor voltages of 2800 Volts and -900 Volts, respectively, and a peak coil current of 7 kA”, col. 11, lines 54-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimulation circuit of Weyh such that the coil arrangement includes a figure-of-eight coil having an inductance of at most 32 µH with the stimulation signal as a peak current of at least 500 A and/or a peak voltage of at least 200 V as taught by Peterchev in order to “achieve transcranial cortical stimulation” to deliver effective therapy for the patient (col. 11, lines 47-60).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.) in view of CA 3094851 (Zheng, see attached).
Regarding claim 16, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claim 15. Weyh does not specify the control signals are selected to control the DC/AC inverter to supply a stimulation signal with unipolar pulse width modulation of voltage.
However, Zheng teaches a stimulation circuit (abstract), comprising a driver circuit (101) configured to produce a stimulation signal with unipolar pulse width modulation of voltage (pg. 8, paragraph 7; unipolar or bipolar, pg. 11, paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Weyh such that the stimulation signal is supplied with unipolar pulse width modulation of voltage as taught by Zheng, in order to deliver a stimulation signal that meets the needs of the individual patient (Zheng: pg. 11, paragraph 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.).
Regarding claim 20, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Weyh does not specify, as cited, the circuit further comprises an output filter arranged between the DC/AC inverter and the coil arrangement, the output filter being a low-pass filter.
However, Weyh teaches an alternative embodiment comprising a low-pass filter at arranged between the output of the DC/AC inverter and the coil arrangement ([0129]; Figure 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimulation circuit of Figure 14 to include a low-pass filter as taught by Figure 18 “in order to smooth the curve of the coil voltage and the coil current with respect to the PWM signal” ([0129]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.) in view of WO 03/107519 (Ressel, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Weyh does not specify the driver circuit is configured to apply pre-distortion to the pulse width modulation control signals, the pre-distortion chosen to correct for distortion to the stimulation signal caused by the DC/AC inverter and/or the output filter, if present.
However, Ressel teaches a circuit comprising a switch and is configured to generate a pulse width modulation control signals, wherein the circuit is configured to apply pre-distortion to the pulse width modulation control signals, the pre-distortion chosen to correct for distortion to the stimulation signal, if present (abstract; pg. 2, paragraphs 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Weyh to apply pre-distortion to the pulse width modulation control signals, the pre-distortion chosen to correct for distortion to the stimulation signal, if present in light of the teachings of Ressel, in order to produce a smoother, less distorted control signal.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0030239 (Weyh et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0361168 (Goetz).
Regarding claim 23, Weyh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Weyh does not specify the pulse width modulation has an average switching frequency of at least 1 kHz, preferably at least 10 kHz.
However, Goetz teaches a stimulation circuit (abstract), and recognizes a pulse width modulation average switching frequency of at least 10 kHz (one magnitude above a 3-8 kHz would be 30-80 kHz ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimulation circuit of Weyh such that the pulse width modulation has an average switching frequency of at least 1 kHz, such as 30-80 kHz, as taught by Goetz, in order to precisely generate a stimulation pulse ([0012]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights