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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 and 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Petersen (US 2018/0085509).
Regarding claim 1, Petersen discloses a driveline for an implantable medical device that connects the implantable medical device to an external controller, wherein the driveline comprises: first and second power conductors that provide a first polarity of power from the external controller to the implantable medical device, wherein the first and second power conductors are interconnected (par 0082); and third and fourth power conductors that provide a second polarity of power from the external controller to the implantable medical device, wherein the third and fourth power conductors are interconnected (par 0082).
Regarding claim 2, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in the implantable medical device (par 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 3, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in a connector to the driveline (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in the driveline (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in the external controller (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in the implantable medical device (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in a connector to the driveline (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 8, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in the driveline (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in the external controller (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 10, Petersen discloses a driveline system for an implantable medical device that connects the implantable medical device to an external controller, wherein the driveline system comprises: (A) a driveline comprising: first and second power conductors that provide a first polarity of power from the external controller to the implantable medical device, wherein the first and second power conductors are interconnected (par 0082); third and fourth power conductors that provide a second polarity of power from the external controller to the implantable medical device, wherein the third and fourth power conductors are interconnected (par 0082); (B) a first driveline communication transceiver in the implantable medical device and coupled to the first, second, third and fourth power conductors in the driveline that provides digital communication to and from the external controller over the first, second, third and fourth power conductors in the driveline (par 0082); and (C) a second driveline communication transceiver in the external controller and coupled to the first, second, third and fourth power conductors in the driveline that provides digital communication to and from the implantable device over the first, second, third and fourth power conductors in the driveline (par 0082).
Regarding claim 11, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in the implantable medical device (par 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in a connector to the driveline (par 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 13, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in the driveline (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 14, Petersen discloses the first and third power conductors are connected in the external controller (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 15, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in the implantable medical device (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 16, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in a connector to the driveline (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 17, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in the driveline. (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 18, Petersen discloses the second and fourth power conductors are connected in the external controller (pars 0048, 0082, see figure 8).
Regarding claim 21, Petersen discloses the driveline system maintains power from the external controller to the implantable device and further maintains communication between the external controller and the implantable device when one of the first and second power conductors fails (par 0081).
Regarding claim 22, Petersen discloses the driveline system maintains power from the external controller to the implantable device and further maintains communication between the external controller and the implantable device when one of the third and fourth power conductors fails (par 0081, 0084, 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 23, Petersen discloses the driveline system maintains power from the external controller to the implantable device and further maintains communication between the external controller and the implantable device when one of the first and second power conductor fails at the same time when one of the third and fourth power conductors has failed (par 0081, 0084, 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 24, Petersen discloses a method for an external controller to communicate with an implantable device on a driveline that connects the external controller to the implantable device, the method comprising: providing first and second conductors in the driveline that provide a positive power connection from the external controller to the implantable device (par 0082); providing third and fourth conductors in the driveline that provide a negative power connection from the external controller to the implantable device (par 0082); providing power from the external controller to the implantable device on the first, second, third and fourth conductors (par 0083-0085); and performing digital communication between the external controller and the implantable device on the first, second, third and fourth conductors (see figure 8, par 0083-0085).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Lo et al (TW 201728141 A, hereinafter “Lo”, copy of English translation included with Office action; citations below are based on the provided translation).
Regarding claim 19, Petersen discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 10 above), but does not explicitly disclose the first and second driveline communication transceivers communicate with each other using binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation and demodulation. Lo is analogous art in regard to power and communication configurations implemented in biomedical applications as known in the art (page 2, “Background-Art” section). Lo discloses it was known in the art to provide data signals modulated to form a two-bit phase offset modulation signal BPSK and sent to a two-bit phase offset demodulation transformer (page 3, paragraph beginning with “Referring to figure 2 and figure 3 together […]). Applied to the invention of Petersen, the features of Lo would provide means for the first and second driveline communication transceivers to communicate with each other using binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation and demodulation as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Lo in the invention of Petersen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of demodulation with lower power usage.
Regarding claim 20, Petersen discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 10 above), but does not explicitly disclose the first and second driveline communication transceivers each comprise: a coupling transformer coupled to at least one conductor in the driveline; a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulator coupled to the coupling transformer that drives a transmitted message via the coupling transformer to the driveline; and a BPSK demodulator coupled to the coupling transformer that receives a message on the driveline received via the coupling transformer. Lo is analogous art in regard to power and communication configurations implemented in biomedical applications as known in the art (page 2, “Background-Art” section). Lo discloses it was known in the art to provide data signals modulated to form a two-bit phase offset modulation signal BPSK and sent to a two-bit phase offset demodulation transformer (page 3, paragraph beginning with “Referring to figure 2 and figure 3 together […]). Applied to the invention of Petersen, the features of Lo would provide means for the first and second driveline communication transceivers to each comprise: a coupling transformer coupled to at least one conductor in the driveline; a binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulator coupled to the coupling transformer that drives a transmitted message via the coupling transformer to the driveline; and a BPSK demodulator coupled to the coupling transformer that receives a message on the driveline received via the coupling transformer as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Lo in the invention of Petersen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of demodulation with lower power usage.
Regarding claim 25, Petersen discloses the claimed invention (see rejection of claim 24 above), but does not explicitly disclose the implantable medical device comprises a first driveline communication transceiver and the external controller comprises a second driveline communication transceiver, the method further comprising: the first and second driveline communication transceivers communicating with each other over the driveline using binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation and demodulation. Lo is analogous art in regard to power and communication configurations implemented in biomedical applications as known in the art (page 2, “Background-Art” section). Lo discloses it was known in the art to provide data signals modulated to form a two-bit phase offset modulation signal BPSK and sent to a two-bit phase offset demodulation transformer (page 3, paragraph beginning with “Referring to figure 2 and figure 3 together […]). Applied to the invention of Petersen, the features of Lo would provide means for the implantable medical device to comprise a first driveline communication transceiver and the external controller comprises a second driveline communication transceiver, the method further comprising: the first and second driveline communication transceivers communicating with each other over the driveline using binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation and demodulation as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the features of Lo in the invention of Petersen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of demodulation with lower power usage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lindsey G Wehrheim whose telephone number is (571)270-5181. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
Lindsey G Wehrheim
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/LINDSEY G WEHRHEIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 4/3/2026
Prosecution Insights