Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/173,919

DIGITAL HEALTH ARCHITECTURE INCLUDING A VIRTUAL CLINIC FOR FACILITATING REMOTE PROGRAMMING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 24, 2023
Examiner
MAHMOOD, NADIA AHMAD
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Advanced Neuromodulation Systems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
792 granted / 879 resolved
+20.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
905
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§102
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 879 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 19-26 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2014/0065580 granted to Kaula et al (hereinafter “Kaula”). In reference to claim 1, Kaula discloses a method of remotely programming a medical device that provides therapy to a patient, comprising: establishing a first communication between a patient controller (PC) device [e.g. patient programmer 50] and the medical device [e.g. IMD 30], wherein the medical device provides therapy to the patient according to one or more programmable parameters [e.g. paragraph 0028], the PC device communicates signals to the medical device to set or modify the one or more programmable parameters [e.g. paragraph 0038], and the PC device comprises a video camera [e.g. paragraph 0074]; establishing a video connection between the PC device and a clinician programmer (CP) device [e.g. clinician programmer 60] of a clinician for a remote programming session in a second communication that includes an audio/video (ANV) session [e.g. paragraph 0074]; and modifying a value for one or more programmable parameters of the medical device according to signals from the CP device during the remote programming session [e.g. paragraph 0028]; wherein the method further comprises: receiving a request from at least one of the PC device of the patient or the CP device of the clinician to redirect delivery of the AN session terminating at the PC device or the CP device to an auxiliary device associated with the patient or the clinician [e.g. Figure 20: steps 1690 and 1700]. In reference to claim 2, Kaula discloses wherein the request to redirect the AV session is received from a web-based application executing on the auxiliary device, the auxiliary device including a display unit having a viewing screen larger than a viewing screen associated with the PC device or the CP device [e.g. LCD display 675]. In reference to claim 4, Kaula discloses wherein the display unit of the auxiliary device executing the web-based application is operable to provide an A/V interface having a resolution greater than a resolution provided by the PC device or the CP device with respect to the A/V session [e.g. paragraphs 0074-0075]. In reference to claim 5, Kaula discloses further comprising continuing to provide therapy to the patient while the A/V session is redirected to the auxiliary device [e.g. paragraph 0112; Figure 20: step 1640]. In reference to claim 6, Kaula discloses further comprising: receiving a termination message from at least one of the web-based application, the PC application, or the CP application to terminate the redirection of the A/V session; and responsive to the termination message, ceasing the redirection of the A/V session to the auxiliary device [e.g. Figure 20: steps 1690, 1700]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 19 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaula in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2020/0402674 granted to DeBates et al (hereinafter “DeBates”. In reference to claim 19, Kaula discloses a method of remotely programming a medical device that provides therapy to a patient, comprising: establishing a first communication between a patient controller (PC) device [e.g. patient programmer 50] and the medical device [e.g. IMD 30], wherein the medical device provides therapy to the patient according to one or more programmable parameters [e.g. paragraph 0028], the PC device communicates signals to the medical device to set or modify the one or more programmable parameters [e.g. paragraph 0038], and the PC device comprises a video camera [e.g. paragraph 0074]; establishing a video connection between the PC device and a clinician programmer (CP) device [e.g. clinician programmer 60] of a clinician for a remote programming session in a second communication that includes an audio/video (ANV) session [e.g. paragraph 0074]; the device including a microphone and video camera [e.g. paragraph 0074]. Kaula, however, fails to disclose allowing a third-party device to join the remote programming session, the third-party device including a microphone and a video camera; monitoring of the remote programming session by a real-time context monitoring module; and responsive to detecting that a therapy programming operation is currently active, inactivating the microphone of the third-party device. DeBates discloses a system and method for modulating therapy in remote care and describes allowing a third-party device to join the remote programming session the third-party device including a microphone and a video camera [e.g. Figure 8B: step 822; paragraph 0053]; monitoring of the remote programming session by a real-time context monitoring module [e.g. Figure 2C: step 238]; and responsive to detecting that a therapy programming operation is currently active, inactivating the microphone of the third-party device [e.g. paragraph 0052]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kaula to include the third party monitoring as taught by DeBates, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an added level of security in order to protect patient privacy. In reference to claim 22, Kaula discloses a method of remotely programming a medical device but fails to disclose wherein the A/V session is monitored by a monitoring service executing as part of a third-party application launched on the third-party device. DeBates discloses wherein the A/V session is monitored by a monitoring service executing as part of a third-party application launched on the third-party device [e.g. paragraph 0052]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kaula to include the third party monitoring as taught by DeBates, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an added level of security in order to protect patient privacy. In reference to claims 23 and 24, Kaula discloses a method of remotely programming a medical device but fails to disclose further comprising presenting a split screen window on a display unit of the third-party device for facilitating a video display of the patient and a video display of the clinician and presenting a notification on a portion of the split screen window to indicate that the microphone of the third-party device is inactivated. DeBates depicts the split screen feature in Figure 16C and indication of the microphone being inactivated [e.g. Figure 16C: element 1634]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kaula to include the third party monitoring as taught by DeBates, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an added level of security in order to protect patient privacy. In reference to claims 25 and 26, Kaula discloses a method of remotely programming a medical device but fails to disclose wherein the user is a family relative of the patient, an authorized caregiver, or an authorized agent acting as a representative of the patient and wherein the third-party device is allowed to join the A/V session responsive to obtaining approval from the patient. DeBates discloses the user being a caregiver or relative [e.g. paragraph 0047] and where approval is obtained from the patient [e.g. Figure 8B: step 824]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kaula to include the third party monitoring as taught by DeBates, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an added level of security in order to protect patient privacy. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is 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. The closest prior art of Kaula fails to disclose the use of facial or biometrical authentication indicia. Claims 20 and 21 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. The closest prior arts of Kaula and DeBates fail to disclose monitoring for the use of key words to determine if the microphone of the third party device should be activated. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADIA AHMAD MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm. 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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. /NADIA A MAHMOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 24, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588854
ALGORITHM FOR OPTIMAL BEAT SELECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589253
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ALIGNING A CHARGER FOR AN IMPLANTED MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589250
ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS FOR WIRELESSLY INTERFACING WITH AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576275
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING NEUROSTIMULATION ACCORDING TO USER ACTIVITY AND AUTOMATED BALANCING OF STIMULATION PROGRAM DURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569181
ECG Waveform Display Method and Medium Thereof, and Electronic Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 879 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month