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
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/10/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4 and 9-12 have been amended, claims 5-7 and 13-15 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, and 8-12 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/112(a)/objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments obviate the rejection of record. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered. Applicant argues on page 12 that “One of the technical purposes the claimed subject matter is directed toward is to allow the cardiac rhythm management system to first attempt an antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapy if the tachycardia is not too severe. However, if this first attempt by the system fails or the tachycardia is too severe, the defibrillator can take over and provide another ATP or a shock. This can avoid a potentially hurtful shock by the defibrillator due to a potentially successful ATP attempt by the system. In addition, by limiting the ATP therapy to a single attempt, energy resources of the system can be conserved. Moreover, this configuration permits an operation in which the system and the defibrillator are not in direct compunction, and therefore this configuration can obviate unnecessary energy consumption that would otherwise occur if there were a direct communication between the defibrillator and the system.
Each of Doerr, Stahmann2, and Greenhut fails to cure these deficiencies of Stahmann. Accordingly, each of the references cited by the PTO fails to disclose or otherwise suggest each and every limitation recited by independent claims 1 and 9. Thus, independent claims 1 and 9 are allowable over the cited art, whether taken individually or in combination, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.” Examiner disagrees because the claim amendments remain taught by Stahmann which the technical purposes explained by Applicant is not represented in the claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made obvious in view of Stahmann et al. (US 20160008615)(IDS)(Hereinafter Stahmann).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrases “the ECG signals, within a time period A, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or indicate that a therapy shock had been delivered” should be amended to recite “the ECG signals, within a time period A, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, tachyarrhythmia, and/or that a therapy shock had been delivered” in lines 6-7, 10-11, 22-23, and 26-27.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrases “the ECG signals, within a time period A, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or indicate that a therapy shock had been delivered” should be amended to recite “the ECG signals, within a time period A, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, tachyarrhythmia, and/or that a therapy shock had been delivered” in lines 4-5, and 11-12.
Regarding claims 1-3, and 9-11, claims 1 and 9 recites the phrase “determine” which is in the present tense and claims 2-3 and 10-11 recite the phrase “determined” which is passive tense. Examiner suggests maintaining the same tense.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 contains 2 periods at the end of the claim, and one should be removed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first detection unit” and “second detection unit” in claims 1 and 9. Page 5 of the instant specification define these detection units as one or more electrodes implanted in the heart tissue.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 and 8-12 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 claim 1, it is unclear if the “normal cardiac rhythm” of lines 10-11 are the same or different than the “normal cardiac rhythm” lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 10-11 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 10-11 are the same or different than “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 14 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “normal cardiac rhythm” of lines 22-23 are the same or different than the “normal cardiac rhythm” lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 22-23 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “normal cardiac rhythm” of lines 25-26 are the same or different than the “normal cardiac rhythm” lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 25-26 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 31 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8.
Regarding claim 1, the claim fails to distinguish between ECG signals received and analyzed from the first implantable stimulation device and the second implantable stimulation device.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 4-5 are the same or different than “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 7-8 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 5 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the “therapy shock associated with the first ATP” of lines 4-5 are the same or different than “therapy shock associated with the first ATP” of lines 12-13 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 5 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 7-8 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim fails to distinguish between ECG signals received and analyzed from the first implantable stimulation device and the second implantable stimulation device.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 8 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 9 are the same or different than “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “normal cardiac rhythm” of lines 11 are the same or different than the “normal cardiac rhythm” lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 12 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 15 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 15 are the same or different than “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if the “therapy shock” of lines 4 are the same or different than “therapy shock had been delivered” of lines 4-5 of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 5 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 4-5 of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if the “therapy shock associated with the first ATP” of lines 4-5 are the same or different than “therapy shock associated with the first ATP” of lines 4-5 of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 5 are the same or different than the “tachyarrhythmia” of lines 4-5 of claim 9.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim would not include the following limitation: “the first implantable stimulation device, generating a first antitachycardia pacing therapy when it is determined that the ECG signals indicate tachyarrhythmia and that no therapy shock had been delivered during time period A” and “the second implantable stimulation device, generating a second antitachycardia pacing therapy or shock therapy when it is determined that the ECG signals indicate tachyarrhythmia and that no therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during time period B”.
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Note the phrase, “first implantable stimulation device, receiving and analyze electrocardiogram (ECG) signals of a patient to detect whether the ECG signals, within a time period A, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or indicate that a therapy shock had been delivered… a second implantable stimulation device, receiving and analyzing ECG signals of the patient to detect whether the ECG signals, within a time period B, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered” in claim 9 are conditional language, that is, if the ECG signals were found to be a normal cardiac rhythm for the first and second implantable stimulation devices, the generation of the first ATP and second ATP or shock therapy in a method claim is not met, the conditional steps recited in the claim are not required to be performed. The conditions of the tachyarrhythmia and no shock of the first implantable stimulation device and tachyarrhythmia and that no therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy of the second implantable stimulation device may or may not be happen. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of such a method claim does not include the conditional step along with the steps proceeding the conditional step. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Regarding claims 10-11, the limitations “the first processor is to cause the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy when the first detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate a therapy shock had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia” and “the second processor is adapted to cause the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy when the second detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia” are steps proceeding the conditional step recited in claim 9, and is further fulfilling a different condition other than the one selected from claim 9. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim would not include the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stahmann et al. (US 20160008615)(IDS)(Hereinafter Stahmann).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Stahmann teaches A cardiac rhythm management system/method ([0075] “FIGS. 3 and 4 show illustrative medical device systems”), comprising:
at least one first implantable stimulation device and at least one second implantable stimulation device ([0075] “FIG. 3, an LCP 302 is shown fixed to the interior of the left ventricle of the heart 310, and a pulse generator 306 is shown coupled to a lead 312 having one or more electrodes 308a-308c.”),
wherein the at least one first implantable stimulation device comprises a first detection unit a first processor configured to receive and analyze electrocardiogram (ECG) signals of a patient to detect whether the ECG signals, within a time period A, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or indicate that a therapy shock had been delivered (Fig. 5 (502, 504) Fig. 2 (206, 210) [0084] “The first and/or second devices may employ one or more techniques for determining occurrences of a tachyarrhythmia based on sensed cardiac electrical signals such as heart rate, a heart rhythm, ECG morphology, etc.” [0090] “For example, device 1 may determine a heart rate parameter based on the sensed electrical signals. Device 1 may identify R-waves or QRS complexes, or other features to determine heart contractions.” [0089] “FIGS. 6 and 7 illustrate timelines 614 and 714, which include an onset of a tachyarrhythmia at times 612 and 712 [period A], along with various functions performed by Device 1 and Device 2.”), wherein:
the first detection unit analyzes ECG waveform patterns to determine whether the ECG signals within the time period A indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or that a therapy shock had been delivered, and the first processor is configured to cause the at least one first implantable stimulation device to generate a first antitachycardia pacing therapy when the first detection unit determines that the ECG signals indicate tachyarrhythmia and that no therapy shock had been delivered during time period A (Fig. 1 (110) [0062] “electrical sensing module 106 may be connected to electrodes 114/114′, and electrical sensing module 106 may be configured to receive cardiac electrical signals conducted through electrodes 114/114′.” [0060] “Pulse generator 104 may then use the energy of the one or more capacitors to deliver the generated electrical stimulation signals via electrodes 114 and/or 114′.” [0089] “FIGS. 6 and 7 illustrate timelines 614 and 714, which include an onset of a tachyarrhythmia at times 612 and 712 [period A], along with various functions performed by Device 1 and Device 2.” [0106] “after determining the occurrence of the tachyarrhythmia at times 812 and 912, device 1 may begin to determine whether the tachyarrhythmia is likely to be susceptible [no therapy shock] to ATP therapy, as indicated by boxes 806 and 906.”),
wherein the at least one second implantable stimulation device comprises a second detection unit and a second processor to receive and analyze ECG signals of the patient to detect whether the ECG signals, within a time period B, indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered (Fig. 5 (502, 504) Fig. 2 (206, 210) [0084] “The first and/or second devices may employ one or more techniques for determining occurrences of a tachyarrhythmia based on sensed cardiac electrical signals such as heart rate, a heart rhythm, ECG morphology, etc.”), wherein:
the second detection unit analyzes ECG waveform patterns to determine whether the ECG signals within the time period B indicate normal cardiac rhythm, indicate tachyarrhythmia, and/or that the therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered (Fig. 2 (210) [0075] “In FIG. 3, an LCP 302 is shown fixed to the interior of the left ventricle of the heart 310, and a pulse generator 306 is shown coupled to a lead 312 having one or more electrodes 308a-308c. In some cases, the pulse generator 306 may be part of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD),” [0069] “In some cases, electrodes 214 may conduct intrinsically generated electrical signals to leads 212, e.g. signals representative of intrinsic cardiac electrical activity.” [0115] “In this case, device 2 may also detect the occurrence of the tachyarrhythmia at time 1212, either on its own or with the aid of device 1 and/or another device. After determining the occurrence of a tachyarrhythmia at time 1212, device 2 may begin a defibrillation shock therapy program.”), and
the second processor is configured to cause the at least one second implantable stimulation device to generate a second antitachycardia pacing therapy or a shock therapy when the second detection unit determines that the ECG signals indicate tachyarrhythmia and that no therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during time period B ([0094] “a device 2 may determine the occurrence of the tachyarrhythmia. Regardless of how a device 2 determines the occurrence of the tachyarrhythmia (e.g. either based on sensed cardiac electrical signals [criterion B’, which is the same of criterion A’] and/or based on a received determination of an arrhythmia from another device), device 2 may begin a defibrillation shock therapy program.” [0119] “instead of relying on device 1 for a “shock” command in order for device 2 to finish charging the capacitor to the predefined energy level, device 2 may be configured to wait a predetermined period of time after receiving the “suspend” command to determine whether the tachyarrhythmia is still occurring. If the tachyarrhythmia is still occurring [following Fig. 12(1215 time point)] after the expiration of the predetermined period of time [following the first ATP therapy of Fig. 12 1220, and no shock is found after 1215], device 2 may then continue to charge the capacitor to the predefined energy level and then deliver one or more defibrillation pulses to the heart of the patient.” [0107] “After delivering ATP therapy, device 1 may determine whether the ATP therapy terminated the tachyarrhythmia, as indicated by box 822. If device 1 determines that the ATP therapy failed to terminate the tachyarrhythmia, device 1 may communicate a “shock” command [determined that no therapy shock occurs in period B as a command is sent to set up shock in period B] to device 2, as indicated by line 815.”).
Regarding claim 8, Stahmann teaches wherein the at least one first implantable stimulation device is an implantable leadless pacemaker (ILP), and the at least one second implantable stimulation device is a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator or a second ILP ([0075] “the pulse generator 306 may be part of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), and the one or more electrodes 308a-308c may be positioned subcutaneously adjacent the heart. In some cases, the LCP 302 may communicate with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD).”).
Regarding claim 10, Stahmann teaches wherein the first processor is to cause the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy when the first detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate a therapy shock had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia (The instant limitations are steps proceeding the conditional step recited in claim 9, and is further fulfilling a different condition other than the one selected from claim 9. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim would not include the claims.).
Regarding claim 11, Stahmann teaches wherein the second processor is adapted to cause the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy when the second detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia (The instant limitations are steps proceeding the conditional step recited in claim 9, and is further fulfilling a different condition other than the one selected from claim 9. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim would not include the claims.).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahmann et al. (US 20160008615)(IDS)(Hereinafter Stahmann) in view of Ludwig (US 20180028829)(Hereinafter Ludwig).
Regarding claims 2, Stahmann teaches the invention of claim 1. Stahmann does not teach the first processor is to cause the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy when the first detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate a therapy shock had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia. Ludwig, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting heart signals for delivering ATP therapy during ventricular tachyarrhythmia (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the first processor is to cause the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy when the first detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate a therapy shock had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia ([0046] “the brady device 102 may inhibit or stop delivery of ATP therapy if the shock detector module 148 determines that a shock has been delivered.”) to avoid further complications if additional therapy is applied ([0046]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Stahmann, with the first processor is to cause the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy when the first detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate a therapy shock had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia of Ludwig, because such a modification would allow to avoid further complications if additional therapy is applied.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahmann et al. (US 20160008615)(IDS)(Hereinafter Stahmann) in view of Ludwig (US 20180028829)(Hereinafter Ludwig) and Reinke et al. (US 20160213940)(Hereinafter Reinke).
Regarding claims 3, Stahmann teaches the invention of claims 1. Stahmann does not teach a second processor is adapted to cause the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy when the second detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia. Reinke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an implantable device determining tachyarrhythmia and providing shock (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the second processor is adapted to cause the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy when the second detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmia ([0049] “LPD 16 may be configured to receive an indication of a detected cardiac arrhythmia eligible for anti-tachyarrhythmia shock therapy.” [0050] “In response to detection of the anti-tachyarrhythmia shock, the LPD 16 may abort and/or temporarily suspend the delivery of ATP and to activate post-shock pacing, such as VVI (Ventricular sensing, Ventricular pacing, Inhibited pacing when activity sensed) post-shock pacing.”) to ensure the higher pulse does not induce another tachyarrhythmia ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Stahmann, with the second processor is adapted to cause the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy when the second detection unit determined that the ECG signals indicate that a therapy shock associated with the first antitachycardia pacing therapy had been delivered during occurrence of tachyarrhythmiaof Reinke, because such a modification would allow to ensure the higher pulse does not induce another tachyarrhythmia.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Stahmann teaches the invention of claims 1 and 9. Stahmann does not teach a wherein the first processor and/or the second processor is/are adapted to re-analyze the ECG signals the first processor causes the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy and/or when the second processor causes the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy. Reinke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an implantable device determining tachyarrhythmia and providing shock (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the first processor and/or the second processor is/are adapted to re-analyze the ECG signals the first processor causes the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy and/or when the second processor causes the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy (Fig. 14(280) and [0147] “Processor 90 may track a period of time since shock detector 99 was enabled, and if the period of time exceeds a timeout threshold, processor 90 may disable shock detector 99 and continue to monitor ECGs for tachyarrhythmias (280). If the period after enabling shock detector 99 has not exceeded the timeout threshold (“NO” branch of block 290), processor 90 may continue to determine if any shocks have been detected (288).”) to ensure the higher pulse does not induce another tachyarrhythmia ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Stahmann, with wherein the first processor and/or the second processor is/are adapted to re-analyze the ECG signals the first processor causes the at least one first implantable stimulation device to not generate the first antitachycardia pacing therapy and/or when the second processor causes the at least one second implantable stimulation device to not generate the second antitachycardia pacing therapy of Reinke, because such a modification would allow to ensure the higher pulse does not induce another tachyarrhythmia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights