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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/19/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that Applicant’s amendments have resolved the cited indefiniteness issues. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 USC 101 as encompassing a human organism have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s amendments have resolved the cited issues. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Independent Claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over US 2002/0068957 A1 to Wolfe et al. (“Wolfe”) in view of US 2008/0061746 A1 to Kobayashi (“Kobayashi”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the combination of Wolfe and Kobayashi does not disclose such a “PWM framework” as recited by amended Claims 1 and 6. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2009/0033289 A1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are based on Applicant’s arguments regarding Independent Claims 1 and 6. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive as explained above. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2009/0033289 A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “a PWM waveform…” at Ln. 6, but should recite --a pulse-width modulated (PWM) waveform--. 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.
Claim 1, 3, 6 and 8, and Claims 4-5 and 9-10 by dependency, 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “and across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax while, in the same PWM time cycles, ton decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin.” It is grammatically unclear whether the term “the same PWM time cycles” is in reference (a) to individual of the “successive PWM time cycles” or (b) to the “same” “successive PWM time cycles” across which the “ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax.” That is, it is unclear whether (a) “ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax” while, simultaneously, “toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” (b) “ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax” and “toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” over the same “successive PWM time cycles.”
For purposes of this Office Action, the above limitation is being interpreted to mean that “ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax” and “toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” over the same “successive PWM time cycles.” That is, within individual of the “the same” successive PWM time cycles, ton increases in the manner claimed and toff decreases in the manner claimed.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 recites “wherein, during the preset charging window, the ton increases from tonmin to tonmax across successive PWM time cycles while, in those same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from toffmax to tonmin.” The limitation is similar to that addressed above with respect to Claim 1, and is unclear for the same reasons.
It is unclear in what sense Claim 3 further limits Claim 1. Claim 3 appears to differ from the Claim 1 limitation “and across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax while, in the same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” only in that none of toffmax, tonmin, tonmin and tonmax as recited by Claim 3 are required to be “defined maximums” and “defined minimums,” respectively. It is additionally unclear whether the term “those same PWM time cycles” is in reference to the same “the same PWM time cycles” of Claim 1, or to different PWM time cycles. It appears that Claim 3 recites different subject matter from Claim 1 (and thus is not rejected under 35 USC 112(d)), but it not clear what specifically that difference is. The issue seems to stem from the indefinite phrasing noted above with respect to Claim 1.
For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 3 is being interpreted similarly to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Claim 6 recites “such that across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window, ton increases from tonmin to tonmax while, in those same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from toffmax to tonmin.” The term “in those same PWM cycles” is grammatically unclear for the same reasons explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 6 is being interpreted similarly to Claim 1 above
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites “wherein increasing of ton and the decreasing of toff occur in the same successive PWM time cycles within the preset charging window.” It is unclear in what sense “successive PWM time cycles” are contemplated as being the “same.” For example, it is unclear whether individual of the successive time cycles are “the same successive PWM time cycles,” whether “the same successive PWM time cycles” means the entirety of a cycle, whether a first cycle and a second cycle are “the same,” or something else.
For purposes of this Office Action, the above limitation is being interpreted to mean that within the same individual discrete spans of time, increasing of ton and the decreasing of toff occur in the manner claimed.
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 1, 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 2002/0068957 A1 to Wolfe et al. (“Wolfe”) in view of US 2009/0033289 A1 to Xing et al. (“Xing”) as evidenced by Wikipedia, "Pulse-width modulation," https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation, accessed 2/17/2026.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Wolfe teaches:
A switched capacitor-based electrical stimulation device, comprising: (Abstract, “Battery driven voltage control circuitry charges an output capacitor, which periodically supplies a current pulse. … This feedback maintains the output voltage within an acceptable operating range to produce an efficacious output current pulse for stimulation without causing unproductive energy loss;” Para. [0037], “The circuit 30 includes a compliance test circuit 50, a converter switch control circuit 52…”);
a power module configured to supply a direct current (DC) power; (Para. [0032], “The circuit 30 produces the voltage VUPC as a function of an applied battery voltage VBAT supplied by battery 32. Battery 32 is preferably rechargeable via a charging circuit 34.”);
Wolfe’s “battery 32” is such a power module as claimed (batteries supply DC current).
a capacitor module including a plurality of capacitors which is charged with the DC power; (Fig. 1a, “stimulation capacitor 18” in conjunction with “voltage converter/clock converter 30;” Fig. 4, “capacitors … C 1 (401), C2 (402), C3 (403) and the reservoir capacitor Cr (404);” Paras. [0055] through [0058]);
Fig 1a depicts “voltage converter/clock converter 30.” Para. [0033] explains that “circuit 30 acts as an up/down voltage converter to multiply VBAT by a factor to produce VUPC.” Para. [0056] states “FIG. 4 depicts the up/down converter ideal switch model.”
The combination of “stimulation capacitor 18” and “capacitors … C 1 (401), C2 (402), C3 (403) and the reservoir capacitor Cr (404)” is such a “capacitor module” as claimed.
a charging module (Fig. 1a, Wolfe’s “voltage converter/ clock control circuit 30” in conjunction with Wolfe’s “current source 26,” “recharge controller 28” and “external programmer 24” is such a “charging module” as claimed.);
configured to detect a charging voltage of any one of the plurality of capacitors, (Para. [0032], “The voltage VUPC is produced in accordance with the present invention by a voltage converter/ clock control circuit 30. The circuit 30 produces the voltage VUPC as a function of an applied battery voltage VBAT supplied by battery 32;” Para. [0037], “The circuit 30 includes a compliance test circuit 50, a converter switch control circuit 52, a converter switch bank 54, a clock controller circuit 56 and a comparator 58. The circuits 50, 52 and 54 function to convert the voltage VBAT to produce the charging voltage VUPC. Briefly, the compliance test circuit 50 examines the relationship between the capacitor droop voltage 44 (i.e. , VCOMPL at the sample clock)…”)
Wolfe’s “VCOMPL” is such a “charging voltage charged in any one of the plurality of capacitors” as claimed. (Wolfe at Para. [0005], “The voltage control circuitry converts the battery voltage VBAT to a charging voltage VUPC based upon programmed parameters and the value of the output voltage VCOMPL measured at one terminal of the capacitor.”)
and control a DC power waveform delivered to the capacitor module (Para. [0031], “A recharge current control device, e.g., current source 26, is also connected to capacitor 18 to selectively apply a charging current to the capacitor. Current source 26 is controlled by recharge controller 28. Controller 28 is preferably programmable by external programmer 24 to control, for example, the on/off timing of current source 26. When source 26 is on and sink 20 is off, a current is applied to capacitor 18 to charge the capacitor toward voltage VUPC;” Para. [0056], “FIG. 5 shows the states of the up/down-converter with respect to the initial and final states of the capacitors, to operate the up/down-converter in the different multiplication factor modes. Resistors represent the switches. FIG. 5a shows the switch and capacitor settings in a charging configuration (SO) and in a discharging configuration (S1) for a multiplying factor of ½, that is a down-conversion mode;” Para. [0035], “FIG. 1 b line (b) shows how the voltage VCOMPL varies between times t2 and t5 as capacitor 18 discharges through load ZL. Between times t3 and t4, controller 22 generates a sample clock 42 to measure VCOMPL to determine the value of its final “droop” 44, i.e. , the value reached by VCOMPL proximate to the end of the output current pulse at time t5. This measured value of VCOMPL at the sample clock is used by the voltage converter/clock control circuit 30 of FIG. 1a to select a multiplication factor to produce VUPC from VBAT.”);
so as to repeat a charging level and a resting level according to a preset charging pattern when the charging voltage is lower than a preset target voltage; and (Para. [0031], “A recharge current control device, e.g., current source 26, is also connected to capacitor 18 to selectively apply a charging current to the capacitor. Current source 26 is controlled by recharge controller 28. Controller 28 is preferably programmable by external programmer 24 to control, for example, the on/off timing of current source 26. When source 26 is on and sink 20 is off, a current is applied to capacitor 18 to charge the capacitor toward voltage VUPC;” Para. [0056], “FIG. 5 shows the states of the up/down-converter with respect to the initial and final states of the capacitors, to operate the up/down-converter in the different multiplication factor modes. Resistors represent the switches. FIG. 5a shows the switch and capacitor settings in a charging configuration (SO) and in a discharging configuration (S1) for a multiplying factor of ½, that is a down-conversion mode;” Para. [0035], “FIG. 1 b line (b) shows how the voltage VCOMPL varies between times t2 and t5 as capacitor 18 discharges through load ZL. Between times t3 and t4, controller 22 generates a sample clock 42 to measure VCOMPL to determine the value of its final “droop” 44, i.e. , the value reached by VCOMPL proximate to the end of the output current pulse at time t5. This measured value of VCOMPL at the sample clock is used by the voltage converter/clock control circuit 30 of FIG. 1a to select a multiplication factor to produce VUPC from VBAT.”);
an output module including electrodes which are configured to contact a human body, configured to receive the power stored in the capacitor and output an electric current to the electrodes according to a preset output pattern, (Para. [0030], “The housing contains electronic circuitry 14 for producing a current pulse between output electrodes 15, 16 through a load impedance ZL, e.g., body tissue.”);
wherein the charging module is configured to generate a rising voltage having a preset slope from a preset initial voltage to the target voltage, and initiate charging when the rising voltage and the charging voltage are equal, (Para. [0036], “…line (b) of FIG. 1b represents a difference 49 between the target charging voltage VUPC and the value of VCOMPL at t6 after the capacitor 18 has been recharged via current source 26. As will be discussed hereinafter, the magnitude of the difference 49 is used to control a clock rate which determines the rate at which the multiplication factor can be adjusted;” Para. [0038], “The circuits 56, 58 function to respond to the difference value 49 (FIG. 1b line (b)) to establish an optimum clock rate for switch control circuit 52. That is, although it is desirable to reduce the difference value 49 to zero, excessive adjustment of the multiplication factor is wasteful of limited energy resources available from battery 32. The clock controller 56 functions to produce a clock rate on line 61 which is optimized to conserve energy and yet maintain the charged voltage on capacitor 18 at close to VUPC;” Fig. 1b (b) depicts such a “rising voltage” as claimed.).
Wolfe does not disclose:
wherein the preset charging pattern comprises pulse-width modulation (PWM) having a PWM period T with an on-time ton corresponding to the charging level and an off-time toff corresponding to the resting level, where ton+toff=T, and across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax while, in the same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin
Xing describes a “Voltage converter with combined buck converter and capacitive voltage divider” (Title). Xing is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The problem faced by the inventor is maintaining efficiency in charging an electronic device to a particular level (Present Specification at Pg. 2, First Paragraph through Second Paragraph). Xing pertains to maintaining such efficiency (Xing at Para. [0002]). Xing would thus have “logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem,” and is analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Xing teaches
wherein the preset charging pattern comprises pulse-width modulation (PWM) having a PWM period T with an on-time ton corresponding to the charging level and an off-time toff corresponding to the resting level, where ton+toff=T, and across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax while, in the same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin (Paras. [0038] through [0040], quotation omitted for brevity).
As explained above, the limitation “and across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax while, in the same PWM time cycles, ton decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” is being interpreted to mean that “ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax” and “ton decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” over the same “successive PWM time cycles.” That is, within the same success PWM time cycles, ton both increases in the manner claimed and decreases in the manner claimed.
Xing’s Paras. [0040] through [0040] describe altering duty cycle between 40% and 60% (both upwards from 40% and downwards from 60%) such that constant current is maintained.
Xing’s “duty cycle” is such “a PWM period T with an on-time ton … and an off-time toff …, where ton+toff=T” by virtue of it being a duty cycle. See Wikipedia, "Pulse-width modulation," https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation, accessed 2/17/2026 at Pg. 2, First Paragraph (“The term duty cycle describes the proportion of 'on' time to the regular interval or 'period' of time; a low duty cycle corresponds to low power, because the power is off for most of the time. Duty cycle is expressed in percent, 100% being fully on.”).
Xing describes raising Xing’s duty cycle from 60% to 40%. Such a rise in duty cycle means that Xing’s on-time goes from 40% on to 60% on. See Wikipedia, "Pulse-width modulation," https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation, accessed 2/17/2026 at Pg. 2, First Paragraph.
Xing’s rise in on-time from 40% to 60% (i.e., altering duty cycle from 40% to 60%) is such “ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax” as claimed.
Xing’s rise in on-time from 40% to 60% (i.e., altering duty cycle from 40% to 60%) is such “toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin” as claimed because when on-time increases, off time decreases concomitantly. Xing’s “max” on time is also Xing’s “minimum” off time, and vice versa.
The period over which Xing’s alteration in duty cycle occurs is such a preset charging window as claimed.
Each instance of a particular duty cycle (e.g., 40%, 60%, etc.) is such a PWM time cycle as claimed. Xing alters duty cycle across successive such cycles.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wolfe with the teachings of Xing (i.e., to implement such a charging pattern of alternating duty cycles as taught by Xing) in order to achieve higher operating efficiency (Xing at Para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wolfe and Xing renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Xing additionally teaches:
wherein, during the preset charging window, the ton increases from tonmin to tonmax across successive PWM time cycles while, in those same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from toffmax to tonmin (Paras. [0038] through [0040], quotation omitted for brevity).
As noted above, Claim 3 is being interpreted similarly to Claim 1.
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Wolfe teaches:
An electrical stimulation method in a switched capacitor-based electrical stimulation device, the electrical stimulation method comprising (Abstract; Para. [0037]);
supplying, by a power module, a direct current (DC) power; (Para. [0032], see similar limitation in rejection of Claim 1, above);
charging a plurality of capacitors included in a capacitor module with the DC power; (Para. [0031]; Para. [033] Paras. [0055] through [0058]; Fig. 1a; see similar limitation in rejection of Claim 1, above);
detecting, by a charging module, a charging voltage charged in any one of the plurality of capacitors, (Para. [0035], “FIG. 1 b line (b) shows how the voltage VCOMPL varies between times t2 and t5 as capacitor 18 discharges through load ZL. Between times t3 and t4, controller 22 generates a sample clock 42 to measure VCOMPL to determine the value of its final “droop” 44, i.e. , the value reached by VCOMPL proximate to the end of the output current pulse at time t5. This measured value of VCOMPL at the sample clock is used by the voltage converter/clock control circuit 30 of FIG. 1a to select a multiplication factor to produce VUPC from VBAT.”);
and controlling a … waveform delivered to the capacitor module so as to alternate between a charging level and a resting level according to a preset charging pattern when the charging voltage is lower than a preset target voltage; and (Para. [0031]; Para. [0035]; see similar limitation in rejection of Claim 1, above);
receiving, by an output module including electrodes which contact a human body, the power stored in the capacitor, and outputting an electric current to the electrodes according to a preset output pattern, (Para. [0030], “The housing contains electronic circuitry 14 for producing a current pulse between output electrodes 15, 16 through a load impedance ZL, e.g., body tissue.”);
wherein the charging module generates a rising voltage having a preset slope from a preset initial voltage to the target voltage, and initiates charging when the rising voltage and the charging voltage are equal, (Para. [0036])
Wolfe does not disclose:
Controlling “PWM” waveform;
wherein the preset charging pattern defines a PWM period T with on-time ton and off-time toff satisfying ton+toff=T, such that across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window, ton increases from tonmin to tonmax while, in those same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from toffmax to tonmin
Xing describes a “Voltage converter with combined buck converter and capacitive voltage divider” (Title). Xing is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The problem faced by the inventor is maintaining efficiency in charging an electronic device to a particular level (Present Specification at Pg. 2, First Paragraph through Second Paragraph). Xing pertains to maintaining such efficiency (Xing at Para. [0002]). Xing would thus have “logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem,” and is analogous art. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Xing teaches
Controlling “PWM” waveform; (Paras. [0038] through [0040]);
wherein the preset charging pattern comprises pulse-width modulation (PWM) having a PWM period T with an on-time ton corresponding to the charging level and an off-time toff corresponding to the resting level, where ton+toff=T, and across successive PWM time cycles within a preset charging window ton increases from a defined minimum tonmin to a defined maximum tonmax while, in the same PWM time cycles, toff decreases from a defined maximum toffmax to a defined minimum tonmin (Paras. [0038] through [0040], quotation omitted for brevity).
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to that of Claim 1, explained above.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolfe with the teachings of Xing (i.e., to implement such a charging pattern of alternating duty cycles using a pulse width modulated waveform as taught by Xing) in order to achieve higher operating efficiency (Xing at Para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wolfe and Xing renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
Xing additionally teaches:
wherein increasing of ton and the decreasing of toff occur in the same successive PWM time cycles within the preset charging window (Paras. [0038] through [0040])
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable previously cited previously cited US 2002/0068957 A1 to Wolfe et al. (“Wolfe”) in view of US 2009/0033289 A1 to Xing et al. (“Xing”) as respectively applied to Claims 1 and 6 above in view of US 2019/0167989 A1 to Guyon et al. (“Guyon”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wolfe and Xing renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wolfe additionally discloses:
“wherein the output module receives the power from an arbitrary first capacitor among the plurality of capacitors, outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a preset first pattern,” (Para. [0030], “The housing contains electronic circuitry 14 for producing a current pulse between output electrodes 15, 16 through a load impedance ZL, e.g., body tissue. The electronic circuitry 14 includes an output (or “stimulator”) capacitor 18 and an output current control device, e.g., current sink 20. The current sink 20 is controlled by an output controller 22. By activating current sink 20, capacitor 18 can discharge through sink 20 to produce an output current pulse through load impedance ZL. The characteristics of the current pulse, e.g., amplitude, duration, repetition rate, are defined by controller 22 which is preferably programmable by an external programmer 24.”);
“receives the power from a second capacitor that is different from the first capacitor among the plurality of capacitors when the first pattern ends,” (Para. [0031], “A recharge current control device, e.g., current source 26, is also connected to capacitor 18 to selectively apply a charging current to the capacitor. Current source 26 is controlled by recharge controller 28. Controller 28 is preferably programmable by external programmer 24 to control, for example, the on/off timing of current source 26. When source 26 is on and sink 20 is off, a current is applied to capacitor 18 to charge the capacitor toward voltage VUPC;” Para. [0049], “The automatic adjustment of the voltage converter clock rate is based on the state of charge of the stimulation capacitor 18. After a stimulation pulse has drained charge from the stimulation capacitor, recharge current is supplied to it and the voltage on it will rise toward the upconverter voltage.”
Wolfe’s “capacitor 18” is recharged via the remainder of the capacitors in Wolfe’s “capacitor module” (i.e., Wolfe’s “voltage converter/clock converter 30”). This recharging is such “receiv[ing] the power from a second capacitor that is different from the first capacitor among the plurality of capacitors” as claimed when the term is afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation.
The combination of Wolfe and Xing does not disclose:
“outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a second pattern of different polarity from the first pattern,”
“and grounds the electrodes when the second pattern ends”
Guyon describes “Integrated circuit design for wireless control of biphasic stimulation in bioelectronic implant” (Title). Guyon is thus analogous art.
Guyon discloses:
“outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a second pattern of different polarity from the first pattern,” (Para. [0008], “…the method including receiving, by the implantable biphasic nerve stimulation device, power from an external power source, electrically coupling, in a first mode of operation, the capacitor to the power supply, electrically coupling, in a second mode of operation, the capacitor to the electrode in a first configuration, providing, by the capacitor, a first nerve stimulation signal having a first polarity to the electrode in the second mode of operation, electrically coupling, in a third mode of operation, the capacitor to the electrode in a second configuration, providing, by the capacitor, a second nerve stimulation signal having a second polarity to the electrode in the third mode of operation, the second polarity being opposite the first polarity…”);
“and grounds the electrodes when the second pattern ends” (Para. [0103], “As indicated by the cathodic mode switching signal trace 904 and the flying capacitor switching signal trace 906, the flying capacitor 345 and the storage capacitor 306 are no longer recharged and the voltages across the flying capacitor 345 and the storage capacitor 306 respectively fall to zero. Because the flying capacitor 345 is no longer discharged to the first electrode 308, the voltage at the first electrode 308 rises to zero as indicated by the electrode voltage trace 910.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Wolfe and Xing with the teachings of Guyon (i.e., to configure the device of Wolfe such that it outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a second pattern of different polarity from the first pattern and grounds the electrodes upon the culmination of both patterns as taught by Guyon) in order to increase the safety of the device, “because the nervous tissue can withstand a higher net current density magnitude as a result of the alternation in current direction” (Guyon at Para. [0047]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wolfe and Xing renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
Wolfe additionally discloses:
“wherein the output module receives the power from an arbitrary first capacitor among the plurality of capacitors, outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a preset first pattern,” (Para. [0030], “The housing contains electronic circuitry 14 for producing a current pulse between output electrodes 15, 16 through a load impedance ZL, e.g., body tissue. The electronic circuitry 14 includes an output (or “stimulator”) capacitor 18 and an output current control device, e.g., current sink 20. The current sink 20 is controlled by an output controller 22. By activating current sink 20, capacitor 18 can discharge through sink 20 to produce an output current pulse through load impedance ZL. The characteristics of the current pulse, e.g., amplitude, duration, repetition rate, are defined by controller 22 which is preferably programmable by an external programmer 24.”);
“receives the power from a second capacitor that is different from the first capacitor among the plurality of capacitors when the first pattern ends,” (Para. [0031], “A recharge current control device, e.g., current source 26, is also connected to capacitor 18 to selectively apply a charging current to the capacitor. Current source 26 is controlled by recharge controller 28. Controller 28 is preferably programmable by external programmer 24 to control, for example, the on/off timing of current source 26. When source 26 is on and sink 20 is off, a current is applied to capacitor 18 to charge the capacitor toward voltage VUPC;” Para. [0049], “The automatic adjustment of the voltage converter clock rate is based on the state of charge of the stimulation capacitor 18. After a stimulation pulse has drained charge from the stimulation capacitor, recharge current is supplied to it and the voltage on it will rise toward the upconverter voltage.”
Wolfe’s “capacitor 18” is recharged via the remainder of the capacitors in Wolfe’s “capacitor module” (i.e., Wolfe’s “voltage converter/clock converter 30”). This recharging is such “receiv[ing] the power from a second capacitor that is different from the first capacitor among the plurality of capacitors” as claimed when the term is afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation.
The combination of Wolfe and Xing does not disclose:
“outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a second pattern of different polarity from the first pattern,”
“and grounds the electrodes when the second pattern ends”
Guyon describes “Integrated circuit design for wireless control of biphasic stimulation in bioelectronic implant” (Title). Guyon is thus analogous art.
Guyon discloses:
“outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a second pattern of different polarity from the first pattern,” (Para. [0008], “…the method including receiving, by the implantable biphasic nerve stimulation device, power from an external power source, electrically coupling, in a first mode of operation, the capacitor to the power supply, electrically coupling, in a second mode of operation, the capacitor to the electrode in a first configuration, providing, by the capacitor, a first nerve stimulation signal having a first polarity to the electrode in the second mode of operation, electrically coupling, in a third mode of operation, the capacitor to the electrode in a second configuration, providing, by the capacitor, a second nerve stimulation signal having a second polarity to the electrode in the third mode of operation, the second polarity being opposite the first polarity…”);
“and grounds the electrodes when the second pattern ends” (Para. [0103], “As indicated by the cathodic mode switching signal trace 904 and the flying capacitor switching signal trace 906, the flying capacitor 345 and the storage capacitor 306 are no longer recharged and the voltages across the flying capacitor 345 and the storage capacitor 306 respectively fall to zero. Because the flying capacitor 345 is no longer discharged to the first electrode 308, the voltage at the first electrode 308 rises to zero as indicated by the electrode voltage trace 910.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of combined Wolfe and Xing with the teachings of Guyon (i.e., to configure the device of Wolfe such that it outputs the electric current to the electrodes according to a second pattern of different polarity from the first pattern and grounds the electrodes upon the culmination of both patterns as taught by Guyon) in order to increase the safety of the device, “because the nervous tissue can withstand a higher net current density magnitude as a result of the alternation in current direction” (Guyon at Para. [0047]).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited US 2002/0068957 A1 to Wolfe et al. (“Wolfe”) in view of US 2009/0033289 A1 to Xing et al. (“Xing”) as respectively applied to Claims 1 and 6 above in view of US 2023/0191140 A1 to Liu “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wolfe and Xing renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Wolfe additionally discloses:
“wherein the charging module includes a voltage source which outputs a preset maximum target voltage,” (Para. [0031], “A recharge current control device, e.g., current source 26, is also connected to capacitor 18 to selectively apply a charging current to the capacitor.”);
“a plurality of switches connected at one side to the voltage source,” (Fig. 1a, “voltage converter/clock control 30” is connected to “current source 26,” and is shown in Fig. 1c to include “converter switch bank 54;” Para. [0040], “Bank 54 is depicted in FIG. 2a as having multiple switch inputs SW1-SW14 for controlling multiple FET switches internal to bank 54.”);
Wolfe’s “current source 26” and its associated components in conjunction with Wolfe’s “recharge controller 28” and its associated components are such a “charging module” as claimed.
The combination of Wolfe and Xing does not disclose:
“a resistor which connects opposite sides of the different adjacent switches,”
“and a resistor which grounds an opposite side of the switch positioned at a lowest end,”
“to set the target voltage corresponding to a set voltage inputted from a user by turning on the switch corresponding to the set voltage”
Liu describes “a stimulation source generation circuit for a nerve stimulator” (Abstract). Liu is thus analogous art.
Liu discloses:
“a resistor which connects opposite sides of the different adjacent switches,” (Fig. 2, “Rb1, Rb2, Rb3 …;” compare Liu’s Fig. 2 with Present Drawings Fig. 5);
“and a resistor which grounds an opposite side of the switch positioned at a lowest end,” (Fig. 2, “Rc9;” Para. [0060], “…the other end of the ninth distribution resistor Rc 9 is grounded.”);
The term “a lowest end” is being interpreted to mean at a schematic end of the circuit in the manner Ro is shown in Fig. 5 of the Present Drawings.
“to set the target voltage corresponding to a set voltage inputted from a user by turning on the switch corresponding to the set voltage” (Para. [0061], “Therefore, it can be seen from the preceding formula that an output range of the reference output voltage Vo_DAC is accurate to ½9, so the reference circuit may output a precisely adjustable reference output voltage Vo_DAC. Values of the first set voltage U1, the second set voltage U2, and the third set voltage U3 may also be precisely adjustable.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Wolfe and Xing with the teachings of Liu (i.e., to modify Wolfe’s “current source” so that it is configured to have a resistor which connect opposite sides of the different adjacent switches and a resistor which grounds an opposite side of the switch positioned at an end as in Liu’s Fig. 2) in order to allow for precise adjustability of output voltage (Liu at Para. [0061]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wolfe and Xing renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
Wolfe additionally discloses:
“wherein the charging module includes a voltage source which outputs a preset maximum target voltage,” (Para. [0031], “A recharge current control device, e.g., current source 26, is also connected to capacitor 18 to selectively apply a charging current to the capacitor.”);
“a plurality of switches connected at one side to the voltage source,” (Fig. 1a, “voltage converter/clock control 30” is connected to “current source 26,” and is shown in Fig. 1c to include “converter switch bank 54;” Para. [0040], “Bank 54 is depicted in FIG. 2a as having multiple switch inputs SW1-SW14 for controlling multiple FET switches internal to bank 54.”);
Wolfe’s “current source 26” and its associated components in conjunction with Wolfe’s “recharge controller 28” and its associated components are such a “charging module” as claimed.
The combination of Wolfe and Xing does not disclose:
“a resistor which connects opposite sides of the different adjacent switches,”
“and a resistor which grounds an opposite side of the switch positioned at a lowest end,”
“to set the target voltage corresponding to a set voltage inputted from a user by turning on the switch corresponding to the set voltage”
Liu describes “a stimulation source generation circuit for a nerve stimulator” (Abstract). Liu is thus analogous art.
Liu discloses:
“a resistor which connect opposite sides of the different adjacent switches,” (Fig. 2, “Rb1, Rb2, Rb3 …;” compare Liu’s Fig. 2 with Present Drawings Fig. 5);
“and a resistor which grounds an opposite side of the switch positioned at a lowest end,” (Fig. 2, “Rc9;” Para. [0060], “…the other end of the ninth distribution resistor Rc 9 is grounded.”);
The term “a lowest end” is being interpreted to mean at a schematic end of the circuit in the manner Ro is shown in Fig. 5 of the Present Drawings.
“to set the target voltage corresponding to a set voltage inputted from a user by turning on the switch corresponding to the set voltage” (Para. [0061], “Therefore, it can be seen from the preceding formula that an output range of the reference output voltage Vo_DAC is accurate to ½9, so the reference circuit may output a precisely adjustable reference output voltage Vo_DAC. Values of the first set voltage U1, the second set voltage U2, and the third set voltage U3 may also be precisely adjustable.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of combined Wolfe and Xing with the teachings of Liu (i.e., to modify Wolfe’s “current source” so that it is configured to have a resistor which connect opposite sides of the different adjacent switches and a resistor which grounds an opposite side of the switch positioned at an end as in Liu’s Fig. 2) in order to allow for precise adjustability of output voltage (Liu at Para. [0061])
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 CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 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, 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796