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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 12/3/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections haves been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 12/3/2025 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages1-2 under the Remarks: “In the present case, Applicant respectfully submits that a human, even with the aid of pen and paper, cannot practically and accurately estimate remaining battery capacity for an implantable medical device using the claimed multi-phase approach that integrates battery energy consumption data (as described in the specification, including across ten distinct usage categories, with real-time battery voltage measurements, applies different mathematical models during distinct phases of battery life based on voltage thresholds, performs linear blending of consumption-based and voltage-based estimates with dynamic weighting during intermediate phases, and implements polynomial functions derived from battery characterization data during tertiary phases-all while accounting for patient- specific usage patterns, tissue impedance, programmable stimulation parameters, and the non-linear discharge characteristics of lithium manganese dioxide primary cell batteries that exhibit initial voltage spikes, gradual rises, steady declines, and exponential drops over a 10+ year lifespan. The Office argues without support that this complex, multi-variable, phase-dependent estimation process involving ongoing measurements from an implanted device can be performed mentally.”
However, at least with respect to claim 1, Applicant has not claimed any of these purported complex, multi-variable, phase dependent estimation processes as argued. Applicant is arguing features not present in the claims. Applicant provides no details regarding the process in claim 1 other than the estimation of battery capacity is made “using battery energy consumption data and battery capacity prior to use of the IPG”. This is a simply assessment, as claimed, of subtracting a power used from a power available. In order to give Applicant’s argument weight, details of the argued process such as the multi-variable, phase dependent estimation process must be in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvement to implantable medical device battery technology have been considered and are not persuasive. However, Applicant has only pointed to benefit of the abstract idea itself and not to any additional elements that, alone or in combination, amount to integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements of the claims, as highlighted in the Ste 2A, Prong 2 analysis and the step 2B analysis only include limitations that generically link the abstract idea to another technology or field of use (The IPG and battery for instance). The external device is so generically claimed to amount to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea and the reception of data is insignificant, extra-solution activity (mere data gathering). This assessment holds true even when looking at the combination of features as a whole. Therefore, taken alone or in combination, the additional elements to not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rejection is maintained.
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, and 13-30 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; an external device configured to communicate with the IPG; and the reception of data at the external device from the IPG. The IPG and battery only generically link the abstract idea to another technological environment or field of use. The external device is so generically claimed to amount to generic computer structure that implements the abstract idea on a computer. The reception of data is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering). 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; an external device with a processor configured to communicate with the IPG; and the reception of data at the external device from the IPG. The IPG and battery only generically link the abstract idea to another technological environment or field of use. The external device with a processor is so generically claimed to amount to generic computer structure that implements the abstract idea on a computer. The reception of data is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering). 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 and 27-30 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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