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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 4/27/2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 2-3 under the Remarks that “a human cannot wirelessly receive data from an implanted device using antenna hardware”. The Examiner notes the limitation in question is not the recited abstract idea and instead refers to additional elements outside of the abstract idea that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Specifically, the transmission of data over time is insignificant, extra-solution activity (data gathering); and the wireless transmission modality claimed is generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data transfer.
Applicant further argues on page 3 under the Remarks that the “cumulative battery consumption data” means the data must be tracked, accumulated, and summed over time. A human cannot practically maintain cumulative tracking of battery discharge data over a multi-year operational period spanning years of device operation.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not specify any level of frequency over the time span in which the data is accumulated and summed and a human can track a reasonable number of data points over a multi-year period to track battery consumption data. The “cumulative” time period could be weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc. and does not necessarily equate to large amounts of data aggregation and analysis.
On pp. 3-4 of the Remarks, Applicant argues a human cannot deliver therapy via an implanted pulse generator and cannot display results on a graphical user interface. The Examiner notes these elements are not part of the recited abstract ide and instead are additional elements that must be considered to determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application or if the combination of elements and the abstract idea amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The Examiner notes the recitation of the stimulation via the implanted pulse generator only amounts to generically linking he abstract idea to another technological environment or field of use. The claims do not recite any particular prophylaxis that ties the output of the abstract steps to the modification or application of therapy. Furthermore, the display only amounts to generic computer structure for the generic computer function of data display and also amounts to the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data/results reporting.
Applicant’s argument son pp. 4-5 regarding the purported technological improvement have been considered but do not overcome the rejection in that any of the benefits are found within the abstract idea itself and not any additional elements, alone or in combination with the abstract idea. The abstract idea alone cannot offer the improvement to overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s argument on page 6 regarding delivering a particular treatment have been considered and are not persuasive. The claims do not provide any particular treatment and instead simply state “an implantable pulse generator (IPG) that is configured to deliver neurostimulation therapy. As noted in MPEP §2106.04(d)(2), the generic recitation of the ability or delivering a treatment or delivery of a generic treatment is not particular and is instead merely instructions to ‘apply’ the exception in a generic way (see example a).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the receiving of battery data has been considered and is not persuasive. Receiving battery data is gathering battery data for analysis and thus does amount to the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data-gathering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-30, 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are drawn to a system (i.e. a product)
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claims recite the steps of estimating the capacity of a battery; determining an estimate of battery capacity using battery energy consumption data and battery capacity prior to use of the IPG; and determining an estimate of battery capacity based on battery voltage during an initial phase and a latter phase (when capacity is below 85-95% of a nominal capacity). These steps, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a user could estimate in their mind battery capacity from battery consumption data, battery capacity prior to use and battery voltage data. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process abstract idea
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an IPG with a battery configured to deliver neurostimulation therapy during a multi-year initial phase and a latter phase; an external device having a processor configured to wirelessly communicate with the IPG; the reception of data at the external device from the IPG; and a graphical user interface configured to display the battery estimate. The IPG and battery only generically link the abstract idea to another technological environment or field of use. The claims do not provide any particular treatment and instead simply state “an implantable pulse generator (IPG) that is configured to deliver neurostimulation therapy. As noted in MPEP §2106.04(d)(2), the generic recitation of the ability or delivering a treatment or delivery of a generic treatment is not particular and is instead merely instructions to ‘apply’ the exception in a generic way (see example a). The external device and processor are so generically claimed to amount to generic computer structure that implements the abstract idea on a computer. The wireless reception of data is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering), with the wireless transmission means being generic computer structure that performs the generic computer function of data communication; and the display amounts to generic computer structure for the generic computer function of data reporting/display. Therefore, none of the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include any additional elements that amount, alone or in combination, to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an IPG with a battery configured to deliver neurostimulation therapy during a multi-year initial phase and a latter phase; an external device having a processor configured to wirelessly communicate with the IPG; the reception of data at the external device from the IPG; and a graphical user interface configured to display the battery estimate. The IPG and battery only generically link the abstract idea to another technological environment or field of use. The claims do not provide any particular treatment and instead simply state “an implantable pulse generator (IPG) that is configured to deliver neurostimulation therapy. As noted in MPEP §2106.04(d)(2), the generic recitation of the ability or delivering a treatment or delivery of a generic treatment is not particular and is instead merely instructions to ‘apply’ the exception in a generic way (see example a). The external device and processor are so generically claimed to amount to generic computer structure that implements the abstract idea on a computer. The wireless reception of data is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering), with the wireless transmission means being generic computer structure that performs the generic computer function of data communication; and the display amounts to generic computer structure for the generic computer function of data reporting/display. Therefore, none of the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11 and 13-24 only further defines the abstract idea and claim 11 specifically adds a mathematical concept abstract idea (a polynomial function)
Claims 3, 27-30 and 53 only further define the data gathering steps.
Claims 25 and 26 only further define the structure (i.e. the battery) that generically links the abstract idea to another technological environment or field of use.
Claim 52 only further defines the generic structure for providing the data transfer (an antenna) which involves generic computer structure; insignificant extra-solution activity of data reception; and generically linking the abstract idea to another technological environment for field of use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN PORTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00 EST.
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 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.
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights