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 arguments Reed does not disclose wireless link representations visually representing the wireless link between the external system and each of the at least two implantable devices. Applicant argues Figure 8A is not a wireless link representation that visually represents the wireless links between the external system and each of at least two implantable devices. Applicant argues that charge level indicator is not a visual representation of a wireless link itself. The charge level icons in Reed convey information about battery state, not about the wireless links. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the wireless link itself is not defined.. The claim indicates the wireless link is used to for at least communication. Since the implant is communicating the charge level, which is displayed on the screen, it is visually representing the wireless link. Had the devices not been wirelessly linked the implanted device would not be able to output the battery state. However, in order to advance prosecution the examiner notes Kaula et al (US Publication 2017/0076025) in Figure 10 illustrates visually represents wireless connection status with the pulse generator along with battery status indicator when connected.
With regards to claim 2, similar to above, the representation of the current charge status of the implanted battery is a visual indication of the link status (connected) as opposed to no charge level (not connected). Regarding claim 13, Reed et al discloses stimulation programming parameters may be set including pulse amplitude, pulse width and frequency (e.g. Paragraph [0225]) and displaying a percentage of stimulation being applied corresponding to the different regions of the body (e.g. left side of the head divided into 3 regions a first frontal section including the supraorbital nerve region, a medial section including the parietal nerve region and a distal section that includes the occipital nerves) (e.g. Paragraph [0243] and Figure 8A). However, as amended the claims do not disclose the stimulation configuration comprising simultaneously displaying an electrode configuration, a pulse width and a frequency. Kaula et al discloses simultaneously displaying the user selection of the electrode configuration, current amplitude, pulse width and frequency for each of the different regions of the body (e.g. Paragraph [0038] and Figure 7). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with simultaneously displaying the user selection of the electrode configuration, current amplitude, pulse width and frequency for each of the different regions of the body as taught by Kaula et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the user to program the implantable device and for easy identification of the current stimulation parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-10, 12-15, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US Publication 2017/0252568) in view of Kaula et al (US Publication 2017/0076025).
Referring to Claim 1, Reed et al teaches a system, comprising: at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19, Elements 10a and Paragraph [0269] disclose implants on left and right side of the head); an external system configured to communicate with each of the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19, Element 1908 and Paragraph [0269] discloses charger/processor body 1908 which contains processor circuitry and batteries for both charging the internal battery in the implants 10a and also communicating with the implants 10a); a programmer configured to communicate with the external system, the programmer including: a user interface, the user interface including a display (e.g. Figure 8A, handheld unit 40 and Paragraph [0269] discloses for communication, an external interface is provided to the user via the handheld unit described in FIGS. 8A and 8B); a processor configured to provide on the display (e.g. Figure 8, Elements 42-44 and Paragraph [0243] discloses monitoring and displaying recharge level along with toggling, selecting and adjusting of stimulation via buttons and therefore necessarily includes a processor): implantable device icons corresponding to each of the at least two implantable devices, an external system icon corresponding to the external system (e.g. Figure 8A and Paragraph [0243] discloses display area 42 for depicting a left icon depicting the level on the left implant and a right icon depicting the level on the right implant; and icon 43 depicting a recharge level of the external charging system and Paragraph [0269] discloses 1908 is the body containing batteries for charging the internal battery in the implants), wireless link representations visually representing the wireless links between the external system and each of the at least two implantable devices, wherein the system is configured to use the wireless links for at least one of communication or power transfer (e.g. Figure 8A, Element 42 illustrates the charge level of each neurostimulator system). In the alternative, that a battery status of the IMD being displayed when wirelessly connected is not a wireless link representation visually representing the wireless links. Kaula et al teaches that it is known to use visually represents wireless connection status with the pulse generator along with battery status indicator when connected as set forth in Figure 10 to provide improved troubleshooting and maintaining easier identification to maintain a stable connection. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with visually represents wireless connection status with the pulse generator along with battery status indicator when connected as taught by Kaula et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved troubleshooting and maintaining easier identification to maintain a stable connection.
Referring to Claim 2, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless representations provide a status indicator for a current status for each of the wireless links (e.g. Figure 8A, Elements 42 and 43 provide a status of the wireless links by providing the charge level).
Referring to Claim 8, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the implantable devices includes a rechargeable battery (e.g. Paragraphs [0010] and [0269] discloses the IPG having rechargeable batteries), and the processor is further configured to provide on the display charge state representations for the rechargeable battery in each of the implantable devices (e.g. Figure 8, Elements 42 and Kaula et al Figure 10).
Referring to Claim 9, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the at least two implantable devices is configured to be programmed with a stimulation configuration, wherein the processor is configured to guide a user with acceptable programming inputs when programming the stimulation configuration (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraph [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation).
Referring to Claim 10, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the stimulation configuration includes an electrode configuration and an amplitude configuration (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraph [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation).
Referring to Claim 12, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to guide the user to select allowable amplitudes for a selected electrode configuration (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraphs [0208] and [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation).
Referring to Claim 13, Reed et al teaches a system, comprising: at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19, Elements 10a and Paragraph [0269] disclose implants on left and right side of the head), each of the at least two implantable devices being configured to deliver stimulation to different regions of a body according to different stimulation configurations, each stimulation configuration comprising a pulse amplitude, a pulse width, and a frequency (e.g. Paragraph [0225]) (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraph [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation); an external system configured to communicate with each of the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19, Element 1908 and Paragraph [0269] discloses charger/processor body 1908 which contains processor circuitry and batteries for both charging the internal battery in the implants 10a and also communicating with the implants 10a); a programmer configured to communicate with the external system, the programmer being configured for use to program the at least two implantable devices by associating the different stimulation configurations with the different regions of the body, and receiving programming inputs for the different stimulation configurations associated with the different regions of the body, wherein the programmer includes a user interface, and the user interface includes a display that includes identifiers for each of the different regions of the body and includes the different stimulation configurations associated with the different regions (e.g. Figure 8A, handheld unit 40, display area 42 for depicting a left icon depicting the level on the left implant and a right icon depicting the level on the right implant and Paragraph [0269] discloses for communication, an external interface is provided to the user via the handheld unit described in FIGS. 8A and 8B). However, Reed et al does not explicitly disclose the stimulation configuration comprises an electrode configuration or that the display simultaneously displays identifiers for each of the different regions of the body and includes the different stimulation configurations (electrode configuration, pulse width, frequency and amplitude) associated with the different regions.
Kaula et al discloses simultaneously displaying the user selection of the electrode configuration, current amplitude, pulse width, and frequency for each of the different regions of the body (e.g. Paragraph [0038] and Figure 7). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with simultaneously displaying the user selection of the electrode configuration, current amplitude, pulse width and frequency for each of the different regions of the body as taught by Kaula et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the user to program the implantable device and for easy identification of the current stimulation parameters.
Referring to Claim 14, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the different regions include a left orbital region, a right orbital region, a left occipital region and a right occipital region (e.g. Figure 19, frontal electrode array 25 (for orbital nerve), and occipital lead 30b and Paragraph [0243] discloses a first frontal section including the supraorbital nerve region, a medial section including the parietal nerve region and a distal section that includes the occipital nerves).
Referring to Claim 15, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 13, wherein each stimulation configuration further comprises an amplitude, and the display simultaneously displays for each of the different regions, the electrode configuration, the amplitude, the pulse width and the frequency (e.g. Kaula et al e.g. Paragraph [0038] and Figure 7).
Referring to Claim 22, Reed et al teaches a method performed in a system having at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19, Elements 10a and Paragraph [0269] disclose implants on left and right side of the head), an external system configured to communicate with each of the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19, Element 1908 and Paragraph [0269] discloses charger/processor body 1908 which contains processor circuitry and batteries for both charging the internal battery in the implants 10a and also communicating with the implants 10a), and a programmer configured to communicate with the external system (e.g. Figure 8A, handheld unit 40, display area 42 for depicting a left icon depicting the level on the left implant and a right icon depicting the level on the right implant and Paragraph [0269] discloses for communication, an external interface is provided to the user via the handheld unit described in FIGS. 8A and 8B), wherein the method includes: displaying a representation of the system on the display (e.g. Figure 8A, display 41); wherein displaying the representation of the system includes displaying implantable device icons corresponding to each of the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 8A and Paragraph [0243] discloses display area 42 for depicting a left icon depicting the level on the left implant and a right icon depicting the level on the right implant; and icon 43 depicting a recharge level of the external charging system and Paragraph [0269] discloses 1908 is the body containing batteries for charging the internal battery in the implants), an external system icon corresponding to the external system (e.g. Figure 8A, icon 43 depicting a recharge level of the external charging system), and wireless link representations visually representing wireless links between the external system and each of the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 8A, Element 42 illustrates the charge level of each neurostimulator system). However, Reed et al does not disclose determining a link status for the wireless links between the external system and the implantable devices, and displaying the link status within the displayed representation of the system.
Kaula et al teaches that it is known to use visually represents wireless connection status with the external system and the implantable devices and determining a link status for the wireless links between the external system and the implantable devices, and displaying the link status within the displayed representation of the system as set forth in Figure 10 to provide improved troubleshooting and maintaining easier identification to maintain a stable connection. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with visually represents wireless connection status with the external system and the implantable devices and determining a link status for the wireless links between the external system and the implantable devices, and displaying the link status within the displayed representation of the system as taught by Kaula et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved troubleshooting and maintaining easier identification to maintain a stable connection.
Referring to Claim 24, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising guiding selection of an allowable stimulation configuration for the system (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraph [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation).
Referring to Claim 26, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the external system includes a headset (e.g. Figure 19, Element 1902) having at least two external coils (e.g. Figure 19, Elements 1904 and 1906), and wherein the method further comprises displaying status indicators for corresponding wireless links between each of the at least two external coils and the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 8A and Paragraph [0243] discloses display area 42 for depicting a left icon depicting the level on the left implant and a right icon depicting the level on the right implant; and icon 43 depicting a recharge level of the external charging system).
Referring to Claim 29, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 22, wherein each of the at least two implantable devices is configured to be programmed with a stimulation configuration, and wherein the method further comprises guiding a user with acceptable programming inputs when programming the stimulation configuration (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraph [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation).
Referring to Claim 31, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein teach of the wireless link representations visually indicates which of the implantable device icons is connected via the corresponding link to the external system icon (e.g. Figure 8A, Element 42 illustrates the charge level of each neurostimulator system and Kaula et al Figure 10).
Claim(s) 3-5, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US Publication 2017/0252568) in view of Kaula et al (US Publication 2017/0076025), as applied above, and further in view of Wenning et al (US Publication 2023/0191141).
Referring to Claim 3, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 2, except wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a suggested action to remedy a problem with the wireless status. Wenning et al teaches that it is known to use a display of the alignment between coils and an indication of how the charging coil should be moved to improve alignment as set forth in Figures 16 and 17, Elements 1600 and 1500 to provide improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with processor is configured to provide on the display a suggested action to remedy a problem with the wireless status as taught by Wenning et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned.
Referring to Claim 4, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the external system includes a headset (e.g. Figure 19, Element 1902), and the headset includes at least two external coils (e.g. Figure 19, Elements 1904 and 1906), wherein the external system (e.g. Figure 19, Element 1908) is configured to provide wireless links, wherein the wireless links include a first link between a first one of the external coils and a first one of the implantable devices, and a second link between a second one of the external coils and a second one of the implantable devices (e.g. Figure 19 and Paragraph [0269] discloses headset 1902 includes right and left coupling coil enclosures 1904 and 1906, respectively that contain coils coupled to the respective coils in the implants 10a), wherein the wireless link representations provide status indicators for corresponding wireless links between each of the at least two external coils and the at least two implantable devices (e.g. Figure 8A, Elements 42 illustrates a display of charge level and therefore provides a status indicator that the wireless link is made).
In the alternative that the status indicator for corresponding wireless links is an indication of alignment. Wenning et al teaches that it is known to use a display of the alignment between coils and an indication of how the charging coil should be moved to improve alignment as set forth in Figures 16 and 17, Elements 1600 and 1500 to provide improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with the wireless link representations provide status indicators for corresponding wireless links between each of the external coil and the implantable device as taught by Wenning et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned.
Referring to Claim 5, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al and Wenning et al teaches the system of claim 4, except wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a suggestion to align a specific one of the external coils when the status indictor for the wireless link corresponding to the specific one of the coils indicates misalignment.
Wenning et al teaches that it is known to use a display of the alignment between coils and an indication of how the charging coil should be moved to improve alignment as set forth in Figures 16 and 17, Elements 1600 and 1500 to provide improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with the processor configured to provide on the display a suggestion to align a specific one of the external coils when the status indictor for the wireless link corresponding to the specific one of the coils indicates misalignment as taught by Wenning et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned.
Referring to Claim 23, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 22, except further comprising suggesting remedial action for the determined link status.
Wenning et al teaches that it is known to use a display of the alignment between coils and an indication of how the charging coil should be moved to improve alignment as set forth in Figures 16 and 17, Elements 1600 and 1500 to provide improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Reed et al, with suggesting remedial action for the determined link status or the determined status of rechargeable batteries as taught by Wenning et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned.
Referring to Claim 27, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 26, except further comprising providing on the display a suggestion to align a specific one of the external coils when the status indicator for the wireless link corresponding to the specific one of the coils indicates misalignment.
Wenning et al teaches that it is known to use a display of the alignment between coils and an indication of how the charging coil should be moved to improve alignment as set forth in Figures 16 and 17, Elements 1600 and 1500 to provide improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Reed et al, with providing on the display a suggestion to align a specific one of the external coils when the status indicator for the wireless link corresponding to the specific one of the coils indicates misalignment as taught by Wenning et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved wireless efficiency as the coils become more concentrically aligned.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US Publication 2017/0252568) in view of Kaula et al (US Publication 2017/0076025) and Wenning et al (US Publication 2023/0191141), as applied above, and further in view of Rondoni et al (US Publication 2015/0367136).
Referring to Claim 6, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al and Wenning et al teaches the system of claim 4, except wherein the external system includes an external device configured to be connected to the headset via a cable, wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the headset and the external device, and the processor configured to provide on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection between the headset and the external device, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection. Rondoni et al teaches that it is known to use a cable to connect two devices and wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the devices, and the processor configured to provide on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection between the devices, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection as set forth in Paragraph [0050] to provide a more secure connection that is less likely to be subject to interference and to provide improved problem solving when the issue is a result of cable connection issues. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with a cable to connect two devices and wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the devices, and the processor configured to provide on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection between the headset and the external device, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection as taught by Rondoni et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a more secure connection that is less likely to be subject to interference and to provide improved problem solving when the issue is a result of cable connection issues.
Claim(s) 7 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US Publication 2017/0252568) in view of Kaula et al (US Publication 2017/0076025), as applied above, and further in view of Rondoni et al (US Publication 2015/0367136).
Referring to Claim 7, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 1, except wherein the processor is further configured to provide on the display a programmer icon corresponding to the programmer, wherein the communication link representations further include a communication link representation corresponding to a communication link between the programmer icon and the external system icon.
Rondoni et al teaches that it is known to use a cable to connect two devices and wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a representation corresponding to a connection between the devices, and the processor configured to provide on the display a link representation, as set forth in Paragraph [0050] to provide a more secure connection that is less likely to be subject to interference and to provide easy identification of the connection status. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with a cable to connect two devices and wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the devices, and the processor configured to provide on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection between the headset and the external device, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection as taught by Rondoni et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of more secure connection that is less likely to be subject to interference and to provide easy identification of the connection status.
Referring to Claim 28, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 22, except wherein the external system includes an external device configured to be connected to a headset via a cable, and wherein the method further comprises displaying a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the headset and the external device, and providing on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection.
Rondoni et al teaches that it is known to use a cable to connect two devices and wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the devices, and the processor configured to provide on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection between the devices, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection as set forth in Paragraph [0050] to provide a more secure connection that is less likely to be subject to interference and to provide improved problem solving when the issue is a result of cable connection issues. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Reed et al, with a cable to connect two devices and wherein the processor is configured to provide on the display a cable representation corresponding to a connection of the cable between the devices, and the processor configured to provide on the display, when a status indicator for the cable representation indicates a failed connection between the headset and the external device, a suggestion to remedy the failed connection as taught by Rondoni et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a more secure connection that is less likely to be subject to interference and to provide improved problem solving when the issue is a result of cable connection issues.
Claim(s) 11 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al (US Publication 2017/0252568) in view of Kaula et al (US Publication 2017/0076025), as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al (US Publication 2004/0199216).
Referring to Claim 11, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the electrodes are designated as an anode or a cathode and any combination (e.g. Paragraphs [0200]-[0201], and [0208]). However, Reed et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to guide the user to select at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode. Lee et al teaches that it is known to use the processor (of the programmer) is configured to guide the user to select at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode as set forth in Paragraphs [0008] and [0058] to provide improved customization of the therapy to improve the efficacy while minimizing the side effects associated with the therapy. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Reed et al, with the processor is configured to guide the user to select at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode as taught by Lee et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved customization of the therapy to improve the efficacy while minimizing the side effects associated with the therapy.
Referring to Claim 30, Reed et al in view of Kaula et al teaches the method of claim 29, wherein the stimulation configuration includes an electrode configuration and an amplitude configuration (e.g. Figure 8A, programmer 40 and Paragraphs [0208] and [0243] discloses the programmer allows the user to increase/decrease the level of stimulation), and wherein the electrodes are designated as an anode or a cathode and any combination (e.g. Paragraphs [0200]-[0201], and [0208]). However, Reed et al does not explicitly disclose wherein guiding the user comprises guiding the user to select at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode. Lee et al teaches that it is known to use the processor (of the programmer) is configured to guide the user to select at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode as set forth in Paragraphs [0008] and [0058] to provide improved customization of the therapy to improve the efficacy while minimizing the side effects associated with the therapy. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Reed et al, with the processor is configured to guide the user to select at least one anode electrode and at least one cathode electrode as taught by Lee et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved customization of the therapy to improve the efficacy while minimizing the side effects associated with the therapy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hansen et al (US Publication 2018/0078329) discloses displaying a degree of coupling between an external coil and an implanted coil.
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 William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights