Detailed Action
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/424522 (“’522 Application” or “instant application”). Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date of the instant application is January 26, 2024. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
The instant application is a reissue application of US Patent 9,561,382 (“382 Patent”), which was filed as application 14/931736 (the ‘736 application) on November 3, 2015 and is entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOW POWER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN IMPLANTABLE DEVICES.”
Based upon Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application and after the Examiner's independent review of the ‘382 Patent itself and its prosecution history, the Examiner finds that he cannot locate any ongoing proceeding before the Office or current ongoing litigation involving the ‘382 Patent. Also based upon the Examiner's independent review of the ‘382 Patent itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations.
II. STATUS OF CLAIMS
The ‘382 Patent issued with claims 1-25 (“Patented Claims”). The preliminary amendment filed with this application amended claims 1-11 an 14-24 and added claims 26-29. As such, as of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
a. Claims 1-29 (“Pending Claims”).
b. Claims 1-29 are examined on the merits below (“Examined Claims”)
III. CONTINUING DATA AND PRIORITY
This application is a reissue of application 14/931736, filed 083344, filed 11/3/2015, which claims priority to provisional applications 62/084476, filed 11/25/2014 and 62/074541, filed 11/3/2014. Because the earliest possible effective filing date of this instant application is after March 16, 2013, the AIA first to file provisions of 35 USC 102, 103, and 112 apply to this application.
In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the prior applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record in the prior applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the prior applications need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution histories of the prior applications are relevant in this application.
IV. REISSUE DECLARATION
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
Applicant has stated that the failure to include dependent claims caused an error of claiming less than they had a right to claim. Claiming less than one has a right to claim means the claims were too narrow originally and are being broadened. However, the error presented is that Applicant’s claims were too broad, which is claiming more than one has a right to claim. Applicant should file a corrected declaration stating that the error was claiming more than Applicant had a right to claim.
Claims 1-29 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
V. SPECIFICATION OBJECTIONS
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claims 6, 7, 19, and 20, the disclosure does not discuss the transmit amplitudes. Hence, the claim language lacks antecedent basis in specification. Since the language was in an original claim of the ‘736 application, it can be added to the specification, so long as no new matter is introduced.
As to claims 12 and 24, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for the highest priority message
As to claims 13 and 25, there is no antecedent basis for message error protection.
The Examiner notes that these objections are not written description rejections, but rather that the terms in the claims are not found in the specification.
VI. 112 REJECTIONS
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 24 recite that the highest priority information is encoded within unique synchronization patterns of the event message. However, since there is no discussion of the highest priority information, Applicant has not established that it was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 3, 6-7, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 21 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.
Claims 3 and 16 recite that the pulse widths lower the current consumption. It is unclear what the current consumption is lowered with respect to. Applicant should use a different term consistent with the spec, such as to save current.
Claims 6-7 recite that the voltage is reduced. It is unclear what the voltage is reduced relative to. It appears that Applicant should uses different term that conforms to the specification, such as to save power.
Claims 8 and 21 recite reducing the transmit power. Again, it is unclear what the transmit power is reduced relative too.
Claim 9 recites that the pulse count is reduced. Again, it is unclear what it is reduced in relation too.
Claim 11 recites that the channels have different pulse durations. It is unclear how a channel has a pulse, rather than the message being transmitted on the channel. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 further recites that the current is reduced. It is unclear what it is reduced relative too.
.
VII. ART REJECTIONS
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 14, 17 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmer US PG PUB 2016/0067487 in view of Wang et al US PG PUB 2014/0121727.
The Examiner notes that Demmer is filed December 22, 2014, which is after Applicant’s earliest filing date. However, The provisional application on which Demmer is based, predates Applicant’s priority data and have the same disclosure. Hence, Demmer is available as a reference
As to claim 1, Demmer discloses a system with two implanted devices, pacemakers 12 and 14 (see figure 1 for example). In paragraph [0031], Demmer teaches that the two devices can communicate with each other, but in order to conserve battery life, communication should be minimized. Demmer does not provide details of how the communication would be minimized. Wang notes that an IMD, like those of Demmer, has a finite battery capacity and that an improved energy efficiency of a transceiver will lead to increased battery life. Wang addresses communications between an external unit and an implanted device, but as can be seen by the disclosures the same energy concerns are present in both types of communications. As such, it would have been obvious to implement Wang’s communication in Demmer, as it is a known method of providing reduced power communications. Wang teaches that the receiver periodically wakes up to listen for a wake up signal from the other device (paragraph [0026]). As noted in paragraph [0028], Wang teaches only periodically sampling some of the communications channel. As such, when the receiver wakes up, it activates at least one channel while at least one channel is inactive. Hence, Wang teaches maintaining the first channel active for at least a portion of a time when the second channel is inactive. In addition, Wang teaches receiving the wakeup signal on the first channel at the first IMD. When the wake up signal is received, the signal includes an intended communication channel for subsequent data transmission, and as such, activates a second channel for subsequent data transmission paragraph ([0026] and [0052])). Hence, when the embedded channel information corresponds to an indication that one of the inactive channels is to be used, i.e. a message trigger pattern, Wang activates the inactive channel to receive data. When combined with Demmer, the information would include information as to the operation of the other IMD, or event information. Hence, the combination reads on claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected for the reasons given above, noting that the combination has the structure.
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected in that each of the pacemakers in the combination are leadless pacemakers implanted in different portions of the heart.
Claim 27 and 29 are rejected in that in figure 1 of Demmer, the pacemakers are in the right atrium and right ventricle.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmer US PG PUB 2016/0067487 in view of Wang et al US PG PUB 2014/0121727, as applied to claims 1, 4, 14, 17 and 26-29 above, further in view of Mills et al US PG PUB 2009/0118597.
The combination does not have a different receiver for each channel. However, Mills teaches in paragraph [0051], having a different receiver for each channel in an implanted device, such as a pacemaker (paragraph [0049]). As such, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to have one receiver per channel, as it is merely the substitution of one scheme for receiving signals for another.
Claims 5, 8, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demmer in view of Wang et al as applied to claims 1, 4, 14, 17 and 26-29 above, further in view of Carney et al US PG PUB 2016/0067490.
With respect to claims 5 and 18, the combination does not specifically state what the messages transmitted between devices entail. However, Carney teaches in paragraph [0010], for example, sending an indication of a sensed event from one pacemaker to another. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to use the communication scheme of Carney, as it is merely the use of a known communication technique to coordinate multiple implanted pacemakers.
With respect to claims 8 and 21, the communication of Carney does not use a carrier.
VIII. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 10, 13, 19, 20, and 22-25 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.
Claim 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 16 define over the art of record in that none of the art teaches that the pulse duration of signals on the first channel is wider than that on the second channel to lower current consumption of the first receiver.
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20, in that none of the art teaches the transmit power relative to the energy cell voltage.
Claims 9 and 22 define over the art of record in that none of the art uses pulse separation of spacing to encode the message.
Claims 10 and 23 define over the art in that none of the art has the first receiver be always on, because in Wang, the channels cycle on and off (see paragraph [0026]).
Claim 11 defines over the art of record in that none of the art teaches the different pulse durations, as claimed.
Claims 12 and 24 define over the art in that none of the art uses the unique synchronization patterns to encode the message with highest priority.
Claim 13 and 25 define over the art in that none of the art provides the error message protection by using pulse spacing or separation patterns.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L NASSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/ROBERT L NASSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992