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
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/26.
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 6 and 10 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.
Claim 6 is vague as the claim is trying to limit the conductive communication signals which have only been functionally recited and not positively claimed. It is suggested to put the limitations in terms of a positively recited element, such as “wherein the electrodes are configured to receive the conductive communication signals having a frequency of at least 100 kHz”.
In claim 10, “the…second electrodes” lacks antecedent basis.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Keuninckx (8315705). Keuninckx discloses the claim limitations as follows:
--external electrodes (e.g. figured 2a, elements 210a, 210b, etc.)
--a dielectric layer to form a capacitively coupled interface (e.g. col. 5, lines 27-33, etc.)
--a circuit connected to the external electrodes to output a differential signal corresponding to the communication signals (e.g. figure 2b, differential amplifier 218, col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 9, etc.). The differential amplifier is connected to the external electrodes through the communication signal—Note the claim does not say “directly connected” to the electrodes. In addition, Keuninckx states that the internal components can also be a separate item directly connected to the external electrodes to provide a bidirectional communication system.
For claim 6, Keuninckx discloses operating at 1 MHz (col. 7, line 23, etc.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keuninckx in view of Forsell (10299700). Keuninckx discloses the claimed capacitively coupled device using two electrodes with dielectric cover, but not that each electrode is separately covered by a dielectric and the use of a passive/driven ground electrode (e.g. claims 2 and 3), and a processor and instructions in memory to identify a communications message transmitted by the IMD, such as by a pulse train having a first frequency followed by a pulse train with a second frequency (e.g. claims 7-9). Forsell teaches first and second electrodes each separately covered by a dielectric (e.g. figure 4, elements 26 and 27) and the use of a passive/driven ground electrode (e.g. claim 4, element 17, col. 7, line 59 to col. 8, line3, etc.), and a processor and instructions in memory to identify a communications message transmitted by the IMD, such as by a pulse train having a first frequency followed by a pulse train with a second frequency (e.g. figure 3, element 38, col. lines 31-53, where the microcontroller necessarily has a memory with instructions since the microprocessor must operate based on some stored/programmed instructions; col. 10, lines 36-48, col. 11, lines 30-53, etc.) in order to: allow the electrodes to be placed on different areas of the body to better transmit and receive signals from the IMD; allow the ground to be driven to make the transfer of information more secure; and to allow the system to be automated and use conventional frequency encoding/modulation of data so that the information can be passed between the two devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Keuninckx, with each of the first and second electrode being separately covered by a dielectric and the use of a passive/driven ground electrode, and a processor and instructions in memory to identify a communications message transmitted by the IMD, such as by a pulse train having a first frequency followed by a pulse train with a second frequency, as taught by Forsell, since it would provide the predictable results of: allowing the electrodes to be placed on different areas of the body to better transmit and receive signals from the IMD; allowing the ground to be driven to make the transfer of information more secure; and allowing the system to be automated and use conventional frequency encoding/modulation of data so that the information can be passed between the two devices.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keuninckx in view of Forsell (i.e. “modified Keuninckx”). Modified Keuninckx discloses the claimed invention except for a feedback circuit to supply a feedback signal into the ground/patient to remove a common mode component within the conductive communication signals sensed by the first and second electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by modified Keuninckx, with a feedback circuit to supply a feedback signal into the ground/patient to remove a common mode component within the conductive communication signals sensed by the first and second electrodes, as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03) since it would provide the predictable results of actively canceling common mode noise, such as 50/60 Hz powerline interference, that can overwhelm amplifiers, improves SNR, and prevents high common mode voltages.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keuninckx in view of Juola et al (7904180). Keuninckx teaches that it is known to allow frequencies over 100KHz to be used with the capacitive electrodes, but does not specifically teach partially attenuating signals below 100KHz. Juola teaches that it is known to use a capacitive electrode that passes signals of at least 100KHz and partially attenuate signals below 100KHz (e.g. figure 8, etc.) to provide a capacitive electrode that is tailored to the needs of the system to sense particular signals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by ,Keuninckx with a capacitive electrode that passes signals of at least 100KHz and partially attenuate signals below 100KHz, as taught by Juola, since it would provide the predictable results of providing a capacitive electrode that is tailored to the needs of the system to sense particular signals.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keuninckx. Keuninckx discloses the claimed invention and the use of capacitive electrodes to be held proximate the skin but not using a garment including the dielectric layer to space the electrodes apart from the skin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Keuninckx, with the use of a garment including the dielectric layer to space the electrodes apart from the skin, as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03), since it would provide the predictable results of allowing the electrode to be held unobtrusively against the patient, such as in a hat/cap or shirt, so that they are not visible to other people and/or can hold the electrodes in the proper place on the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is (571)272-4945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/George R Evanisko/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 3/17/26
Prosecution Insights