DETAILED ACTION
Note to Applicant about this supplemental Final Office Action: this updated office action differs from the previous final office action in the following manner; claims 10, 11 and 12 are objected to as outlined below, they each depend from previously cancelled claims. The previous office action (Final Office Action) action is hereby replaced/superseded.
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 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 1-2 of applicants remarks, the argument is made that a general statement of coupling to the housing does not specify that the housing itself is used as an electrode. Although the claim and language to which this argument is not identified, it is assumed that the claim language is in claim 1, lines 11-12 which recites “wherein the first housing is configured to function as an electrode during the generation of one or more pulses by the IPG”.
Figure 12 of Stancer shows a housing electrode 258 directly on the housing 260 of the IMD 216. Electrode 258 is disclosed as also being substantially the entire housing (paragraph 0119 “In some examples, housing electrode 258 comprises substantially all of housing 260”). The argument presented appears to be that the statement of a housing electrode 258 does not specify that the housing electrode is actually used as an electrode. As is known in the art of tissue stimulating using implantable electrodes, it is commonplace for the housing electrode to be a utilized as an electrode. Specifically housing electrodes can act as an anode or a cathode during sensing and stimulating procedures. In addition to what is commonplace in the art, paragraph 0019 of Stancer specifies that housing electrode 258 is used to sense signals in a bipolar or unipolar manner. The electrodes can also be used in a multipolar sensing combination as specified in paragraph 0020. Stancer further discloses that the housing electrode 258 can be used in a bipolar or unipolar pacing configurations (paragraph 0121). Based on common practice in the art as well as the disclosure of Stancer, the housing electrode is being used in a conventional manner to both sense and stimulate tissue which meets the claim limitation: “wherein the first housing is configured to function as an electrode during the generation of one or more pulses by the IPG” as is found in independent claim 1. This limitation is not found in independent claim 22.
On page 2 of applicants arguments it is argued that not all of the drawings in Stancer are of the same embodiment and that the 35 USC §102 rejection is improper because it includes a mixture of embodiments and should therefore be a 35 USC §103 rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
283
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, the 35 USC §102 rejection made under Stancer applies figures 11-13. The description of figures 11-13 are:
Based on this alone figures 11-13 are all specific to figure 1 which is an example telemetry system 10. Note that the example telemetry system 10 is shown in figures 11, 12 and 13. There are two scenarios for the example telemetry system 10 which are shown in figures 5 and figure 6. Either the configuration of figure 5 or the configuration of figure 6 can be used in the system described by figures 11-13. Therefore, in no way are figures 11-13 different embodiments and/or a combination of embodiments. The only way to combine embodiments within the Stancer disclosure is to combine figures 5 and 6 which has not been done in this case. The argument here appears to be “To the contrary, the discussion of Figure 12 indicates that there can be several electrodes on the housing, and nothing indicates that this aspect of the disclosure of Stancer would be combined the optional coupling of the RF ground to the housing”. This is understood to mean that applicant considers the coupling of the RF ground to the housing to be optional. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, with reference to figures 11-13 each and every figure shows element 10 which is the telemetry conductive path 102 found in either figure 5 or figure 6. This demonstrates that Stancer contemplated either the telemetry conductive path of figure 5 or the telemetry conductive path of figure 6.
With reference to figure 5 paragraphs 0074-0080 are found within the Stancer specification which describe figure 5. Paragraph 0079 specifically states: “In some examples, secondary line conductors 80, 82 may be electrically coupled to an RF ground. The RF ground may, in some examples, be capacitively coupled to the housing of the device in which the implanted telemetry system 10 operates”.
With reference to figure 6 paragraphs 0081-0089 are found within the Stancer specification which describe figure 6. Paragraph 0088 specifically states: “In some examples, secondary line conductors 104, 106, 108 may be electrically coupled to an RF ground. The RF ground may, in some examples, be capacitively coupled to the housing of the device in which implantable telemetry system 10 operates.”
Based on these nearly identical recitations, with respect to both figures 5 and 6, the conductor lines are connected to RF ground via a capacitor clearly demonstrates that this limitation is found within both conceived telemetry conduction paths of figures 5 and 6. Further the fact that these lines are connected to an RF ground shows, without ambiguity, that the ground is capacitively coupled. The claim language uses the word “comprising” which is a transitional phrase. The use of comprising is considered to be open-ended and does not exclude additional components such as capacitive coupling.
The claim rejections are not withdrawn. The arguments found on page 3 are not directed towards any specific claim language and therefore are not entirely understood, however they seem to pin on a combination of embodiments which is addressed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 9-11 each depend from cancelled claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stancer et al. US 2012/0109261 previously cited.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 9: Stancer discloses and IPG 216 (figure 13) which includes a communication module 14 (“telemetry circuit”, figure 13) which sends and receives data (paragraph 0035), a data module 294 (“memory”, figure 13) coupled to the communication module (the memory is coupled through the processor to the telemetry circuit) which manages data related to the IMD (paragraphs 0140-0141, 0147), a pulse control module 292 (“processor”, figure 13) which controls generation of pulses (paragraph 0140) delivered by the IMD, an energy storage device 278 (“power source”, figure 13) which stores energy (paragraph 0162); a first device housing 260 (figure 12) and a second housing (as is seen in figures 11-12 the IMD housing 260 as well as an unlabeled header/connector block housing, the header/connector block housing is considered to be the second housing). The antenna 12 is within the header/connector block housing (see paragraph 0028) which is outside the IMD housing. The antenna is shown operably connected to the telemetry circuit 14 inside of the IMD housing 260, the battery is also inside the IMD housing (figure 13). The antenna 12 is selectively coupled to ground, which is the housing, through a capacitor (paragraphs 0075 and 0079; a capacitor will allow for some but not all signals to pass this is considered to be selectively coupling. This selective coupling allows for a low and high impedance path, the capacitors are also used to function as an open circuit to allow for stimulation). Stancer further discloses that the housing acts as an electrode 258 (figures 11-13 and paragraph 0118-121; as previously discussed the housing electrode 258 is both a sensing and a stimulation electrode as is common in the art). Specifically regarding the claim language “wherein the first housing provides a radio frequency ground reference for the antenna”. Stancer discloses in figure 5 and paragraphs 0074-0080 “In some examples, secondary line conductors 80, 82 may be electrically coupled to an RF ground. The RF ground may, in some examples, be capacitively coupled to the housing of the device in which the implanted telemetry system 10 operates”. Stancer also discloses in figure 6 and paragraphs 0081-0089 “In some examples, secondary line conductors 104, 106, 108 may be electrically coupled to an RF ground. The RF ground may, in some examples, be capacitively coupled to the housing of the device in which implantable telemetry system 10 operates.” Based on these nearly identical recitations of the conductor lines being connected to RF ground via a capacitor within the telemetry system clearly demonstrates that this is within both conceived telemetry conduction paths of figures 5 and 6. Further the fact that these lines are connected to an RF ground shows without ambiguity that the ground is capacitively coupled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancer et al. US 2012/0109261 previously cited in view of Linder et al. US 6,505,072 previously cited.
Regarding claim 5: Stancer discloses the claimed invention however Stancer does not specifically disclose a feed through connector coupled to the first housing and extending into the second housing, the feed through connector electrically coupling the antenna to the communication module and the housing. It is noted that Stancer does disclose the antenna connected to the communication module 14 and the housing (figure 13, paragraph 0079). Linder however teaches of a similar device (abstract and figure 1) which includes a conductive housing 12 (figure 1) which includes a feedthrough pin extending from the header into the sealed housing. A second feedthrough pin is connected to the telemetry antenna and connects the antenna to internal telemetry circuitry as well as the device housing (column 2, lines 48-67 and claim 13). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include that feedthrough pin extending from the sealed header to the sealed inner circuitry of the IMD which connects the feedthrough pin to both the internal circuitry as well as the device housing, as taught by Linder, in order to isolate the telemetry transmitter and/or receiver from voltages due to therapy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancer et al. US 2012/0109261 previously cited in view of Linder et al. US 6,505,072 previously cited and further in view of Phillips et al. US 2005/0075684 previously cited.
Regarding claim 11: Stancer/Linder discloses the claimed invention however Stancer/Linder does not specifically disclose a switch to selectively couple the antenna. Phillips however teaches of a telemetry interface which is selectively coupled to an antenna via a switch 41. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Stancer/Linder to include selectively coupling via a switch, as taught by Phillips in order to selectively couple the antenna.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancer et al. US 2012/0109261 previously cited in view of Grevious et al. US 2013/0110202 previously cited.
Regarding claims 12 and 22: Stancer discloses and IPG 216 (figure 13) which includes a communication module 14 (“telemetry circuit”, figure 13) which sends and receives data (paragraph 0035), a data module 294 (“memory”, figure 13) coupled to the communication module (the memory is coupled through the processor to the telemetry circuit) which manages data related to the IMD (paragraphs 0140-0141, 0147), a pulse control module 292 (“processor”, figure 13) which controls generation of pulses (paragraph 0140) delivered by the IMD, an energy storage device 278 (“power source”, figure 13) which stores energy (paragraph 0162); a first device housing 260 (figure 12) and a second housing (as is seen in figures 11-12 the IMD housing 260 as well as an unlabeled header/connector block housing, the header/connector block housing is considered to be the second housing). The antenna 12 is within the header/connector block housing (see paragraph 0028) which is outside the IMD housing. The antenna is shown operably connected to the telemetry circuit 14 inside of the IMD housing 260, the battery is also inside the IMD housing (figure 13). The antenna 12 is selectively coupled to ground, which is the housing, through a capacitor (paragraphs 0075 and 0079; a capacitor will allow for some but not all signals to pass this is considered to be selectively coupling. This selective coupling allows for a low and high impedance path, the capacitors are also used to function as an open circuit to allow for stimulation). However, Stancer does not specifically disclose the use of an inverted F-type antenna. Grevious however teaches of a similar device which uses an inverted F antenna (paragraph 0062). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Stancer to include an inverted F antenna, as taught by Grevious, in order to utilized RF telemetry.
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