DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication dated 23 December 2025 concerning Application No. 18/446,598 filed on 09 August 2023.
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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-22 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability; claims 1-6, 9, 12, 14-18, and 20 have been amended; claims 7 and 19 have been cancelled; claims 21-22 have been added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 23 December 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive or moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite delivery of a second train of electrical stimulation pulses at least partially defined by a second unique parameter variation pattern. The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations in the updated text of the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson et al. (US 2019/0160294 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Peterson describes a system and method comprising processing circuitry ([0005]) configured to
control stimulation circuitry to deliver a sequence of a plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses ([0016], [0042]), wherein the plurality of trains comprises
a first train of electrical stimulation pulses at least partially defined by a first unique parameter variation pattern of a plurality of parameter variation patterns defining variation of a first parameter ([0028], [0072], use of various stimulation profiles)
a second train of electrical stimulation pulses at least partially defined by a second unique parameter variation pattern of the plurality of parameter variation patterns defining variation of a second parameter different from the first parameter ([0103] - [0105]; figures 5A-5D show pulse trains with different parameter variations)
control the stimulation circuitry to repeatedly deliver the sequence of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses ([0043])
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Peterson describes wherein the first unique parameter variation pattern defines a varied pulse width of at least some pulses of the first train of electrical stimulation pulses ([0017]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Peterson describes wherein the first unique parameter variation pattern defines a varied polarity of at least some pulses of the first train of electrical stimulation pulses ([0028]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Peterson describes wherein the first unique parameter variation pattern defines a varied frequency of at least some pulses of the first train of electrical stimulation pulses ([0003], [0032]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Peterson describes wherein the first unique parameter variation pattern defines a varied amplitude of at least some pulses of the first train of electrical stimulation pulses ([0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson describes wherein the first unique parameter variation pattern defines a varied electrode combination of at least some pulses of the first train of electrical stimulation pulses ([0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Peterson describes wherein the processing circuitry is configured to separate consecutive trains of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses within the sequence by an inter-train delay period ([0018]; figures 5A-5D).
Regarding claim 11, Peterson describes wherein the processing circuitry is configured to separate consecutive deliveries of the sequence by an inter-sequence delay period ([0018]; figures 5A-5D).
Regarding claim 12, Peterson describes wherein the sequence of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses comprises at least four trains of electrical stimulation pulses (figure 5D), each train of the four trains of electrical stimulation pulses comprising respective pulses that are varied according to respective unique parameter variation patterns of the plurality of parameter variation patterns ([0032], [0075]), wherein the four trains of electrical stimulation pulses comprises the first train and the second train (figures 5A-5D).
Regarding claim 13, Peterson describes an implantable medical device comprising the processing circuitry and the stimulation circuitry ([0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Peterson describes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, causes processing circuitry ([0005]) to
control stimulation circuitry to deliver a sequence of a plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses ([0016], [0042]), wherein each train of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses comprises respective pulses at least partially defined by a unique parameter variation pattern of a plurality of parameter variation patterns ([0028], [0072], use of various stimulation profiles)
control the stimulation circuitry to repeatedly deliver the sequence of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses ([0043])
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.
Claims 8, 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Torgerson et al. (US 8,918,184 B1).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Peterson describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, including wherein the sequence is a first sequence ([0016]), but Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to
receive a request to skip one or more trains of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses
responsive to receiving the request to skip the one or more trains, remove the one or more trains from the first sequence to generate a second sequence of trains of electrical stimulation pulses
control the stimulation circuitry to deliver the second sequence of trains of electrical stimulation pulses
However, Torgerson also describes a system and method for controlling stimulation circuitry, including processing circuitry configured to
receive a request to skip one or more trains of the plurality of trains of electrical stimulation pulses (col 43:23-49)
responsive to receiving the request to skip the one or more trains, remove the one or more trains from the first sequence to generate a second sequence of trains of electrical stimulation pulses (col 43:23-49)
control the stimulation circuitry to deliver the second sequence of trains of electrical stimulation pulses (col 43:64-44:7)
As Torgerson is also directed towards controlling stimulation circuitry and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a skip function similar to that described by Togerson when using the system and method described by Peterson, as doing so advantageously allows a user to dynamically update the resulting system, as described by Torgerson.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Peterson describes wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the second sequence of trains by adding a new train of electrical stimulation pulses comprising pulses varied according to a third unique parameter variation pattern different from the first unique parameter variation pattern and the second unique parameter variation pattern (([0017], [0028], [0032] list the various parameter variation patterns which may be used).
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
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 Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM 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 by telephone 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792