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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Crosby and/or the Crosby in view of Mathur references do not disclose or teach detecting the presence of an emitting device, verifying if the emitting device is the charging device and in response to the verification charging the pulse generator battery. Mathur however teaches of a pulse generator for a trial nerve stimulator which includes a therapy mode and a charging mode (paragraph 0006). In the Mathur device, the processor of the EPG is responsible for switching between modes based on a connection of certain types of connectors (paragraph 0074). The processor of the EPG detects the type of cable (paragraph 0074) which includes detecting the presence of an emitting device which is within distance (based on cable length). Further, the detection of cable type is broadly considered to include verifying in that if the appropriate cable connection is not detected, verification fails. Once the proper cable is attached the device of Mathur will then charge the battery of the EPG while suspending all stimulation (paragraphs 0071, 0074-0075).
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 1-2, 9-11 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby et al. US 2011/0224665 previously cited in view of Mathur et al. US 2017/0239483 previously cited.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 13 and 14: Crosby discloses an IPG 60 (figure 5, “implantable stimulator”, paragraph 0041) comprising a processor 61 (“controller”, figures 2-3) configured to:
receive, in a charging mode (the charging mode is considered to be when the external device is inductively charging the implant), electromagnetic radiation from a charging device 30 (figure 1, paragraph 0029 “The stimulator system further comprises an external control system that may be coupled to the stimulator housing to supply power to the power source”.) wherein the electromagnetic radiation transfers energy to the implantable device to charge an energy storage device (paragraph 0029 “The external control system may be configured to transfer energy to the power source via inductive coupling.”; also see paragraph 0031)
measure, in a measurement mode, an electrical field parameter signal representing a neural response (Crosby discloses measuring an electric field parameter representing a neural response “evoked potentials”, [paragraph 0095] this is considered to be a measurement mode).
Crosby therefore discloses the claimed invention however Crosby does not disclose selectively transitioning between a charging and measurement mode and in the device does not receive external charging during a non-charging mode and the stimulator device detecting the presence of an emitting device. Mathur however teaches of a pulse generator for a trial nerve stimulator which includes a therapy mode and a charging mode (paragraph 0006). In the Mathur device, the processor of the EPG is responsible for switching between modes based on a connection of certain types of connectors (paragraph 0074). The processor of the EPG detects the type of cable (paragraph 0074) which includes detecting the presence of an emitting device which is within distance (based on cable length). Further, the detection of cable type is broadly considered to include verifying in that if the appropriate cable connection is not detected, verification fails. Once the proper cable is attached the device of Mathur will then charge the battery of the EPG while suspending all stimulation (paragraphs 0071, 0074-0075). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Crosby to include selectively transitioning between a charging mode and an operational mode, the processor of the stimulation device detecting a presence of an emitting device, verifying the emitting device and transitioning to the appropriate mode, as taught by Mathur, in order to utilized different operational modes.
Regarding claim 2: Crosby discloses applying neural stimulation (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claims 9 and 11: Crosby discloses operating in the measurement mode to measure an ECAP (Crosby discloses measuring an electric field parameter representing a neural response “evoked potentials”, [paragraph 0095] this is considered to be a measurement mode).
Regarding claim 10: Crosby discloses operating in the measurement mode (see the claim 9 rejection), the device of Crosby based on the control system either transferring energy or power (paragraph 0029) or measuring signals (paragraph 0095)
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby et al. US 2011/022466 previously recited 5 in view of Mathur et al. US 2017/0239483 previously recited and further in view of Tateda et al. US 2016/0151007 previously recited.
Regarding claim 3: Crosby/Mathur discloses the claimed invention however Crosby/Mathur does not specifically disclose stopping charging during sensing. Tateda however teaches of a biological information measurement device which includes either stopping the measuring of parameters during charging (paragraphs 0022, 0037, 0039) or stops charging during a measurement (paragraph 0048). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Crosby/Mathur to include either stopping the charging of the device during sensing or stopping the sensing during charging, as taught by Tateda, in order to selectively execute charging and sensing (abstract Tadeda).
Specifically regarding claims 6-8: each of the claims are rendered indefinite as discussed above in the 112 section. Further, the language is considered to be functional language and/or intended use. Applicant is advised that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises all of the structural limitations of the claims.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby et al. US 2011/0224665 previously recited in view of Mathur et al. US 2017/0239483 previously recited and further in view of Tateda et al. US 2016/0151007 previously recited and further in view of Meadows et al. US 7,295,878 previously recited.
Regarding claims 4-5: Crosby/Mathur/Tateda discloses the claimed invention. However Crosby/Mathur/Tateda does not specifically disclose the use of reflected impedance. Meadows however teaches of an implanted neural stimulator (“SCS”, column 9, line 4) which includes a rechargeable battery and telemetry system (column 9 lines 44-45) as well as an external hand-held programmer and charger (column 10 line 5) which uses reflected impedance (column 18, lines 30-50). The microcontroller within the implant includes a monitoring circuit 174 (figure 3) which monitors the power supply voltage (column 10, lines 50-55). The function of the battery charging circuit is to 1) monitor battery voltage and provide charge status, 2) ensure the battery is not over charged and 3) monitor battery voltage during charging (column 15, lines 20-25). Once charging of the internal battery is completed the external charger indicates charge complete and opens the charge-enabling FET to prevent further charging (i.e. overcharging, column 19, lines 10-20). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Crosby/Mathur/Tateda to utilize reflective impedance for charging an internal battery and disabling the charging once the battery is fully charged, as taught by Meadows, in order to prevent over charging of the battery. Specifically regarding the language in claim 5, the claims presented are device claims and the language in claim 5 is considered to be functional and or intended use language. Applicant is advised that it makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises all of the structural limitations of the claims.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby et al. US 2011/0224665 in view of Mathur previously recited et al. US 2017/0239483 previously recited and further in view of Peterson US 10,305,692 previously recited and further in view of Angara et al. US 2019/0273404 previously recited.
Regarding claim 22: Crosby/Mathur/Peterson discloses the claimed invention however Crosby/Mathur/Peterson does not specifically disclose a sensor associated with the charging coil. Angara however teaches of an impedance sensor which detects reflected impedance to select an optimum frequency for charging based on the impedance sensor (paragraphs 0007, 0118). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Crosby/Mathur/Peterson to include an impedance sensor to sense reflected impedance, as taught by Angara, in order to provide more efficient charging of an IPG battery (paragraph 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claims 1 and 21 in combination with an interrupt signal sent from the implant to the external device to verify if the emitting device is the charging device.
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 PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights