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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 16, and 28 have been amended. Claims 1-16 and 28-31 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Claim Objections has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determined type of movement" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “a type”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the determined patient movement" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “a type of movement”.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-31 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. The limitation recites “determining a new threshold sensor value associated with a second active movement type”. However, Specification [0097] discloses “In some examples, gyroscope data/other sensor data 702 may be used to determine additional movement characteristics and/or confirm that a particular movement (e.g., target activity) is being performed and used to set a threshold value” and Specification [0109] discloses “The advanced value is then compared with the advanced threshold value of advanced classier 823 to determine whether the patient movement is performing the activity of interest 825 (e.g., target activity).” That is, the threshold sensor value and new threshold sensor value are associated with a particular movement. The specification includes no description of determining a new threshold sensor value associated with a second active movement type. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read "determining a new threshold sensor value associated with a second active movement type”.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi et al. (US20240216683A1 -hereinafter Guhaniyogi) in view of Sala et al. (US20150206682A1 -hereinafter Sala).
Regarding Claim 1, Guhaniyogi teaches a surgical implant, comprising:
a first sensor; (see Abstract; Guhaniyogi: “A medical device for implantation within or mounting on a patient's body includes an accelerator unit,”)
a second sensor; and (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “other sensors such as a gyroscope, heart rate sensor, temperature sensor, or respiration sensor”)
a processor, the processor configured to: (see Abstract; Guhaniyogi: “a processor”)
receive a first value from the first sensor based on a movement of the surgical implant; (see [0028]; Guhaniyogi: “The processor processes the (raw) acceleration data received from the accelerator unit directly or the acceleration data received from the data memory unit.”)
distinguish between a target type of active movement of the surgical implant and a non-target type of active movement of the surgical implant based on the first value; (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “The processor is configured to differentiate between an active state and a rest state of the medical device and thereby of the patient's body as the medical device moves with the patient's body. According to the invention, the patient's body is in an active state if the processor determines an actual activity/motion level (of the medical device) above a predefined threshold. If the activity level is below or equal to this threshold, it is assumed that the patient's body is at rest.”)
However, Guhaniyogi does not explicitly teach:
adjust power to the second sensor based on the determined type of movement of the surgical implant, wherein the second sensor is activated during the target type of active movement and not activated during the non-target type of active movement; and
receive one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the target type of active movement.
Sala from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
adjust power to the second sensor based on the determined type of movement of the surgical implant (see [0040]; Sala: “Upon detecting an event while in suspend mode 322, e.g. a rotation, a shaking event, or detecting an unacceptably low accuracy in magnetometer data, state machine 300 transactions back to normal mode 302.”), wherein the second sensor is activated during the target type of active movement (see [0036]; Sala: “In normal mode 302, which may be the default setting, the gyroscope is always turned on”) and not activated during the non-target type of active movement; and (see [0036]; Sala: “finally, in suspend mode 322, which is a second power save condition, the gyroscope is always turned off or in a non-active state.”)
receive one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the target type of active movement. (see [0025]; Sala: “In one embodiment, power management system 100 is configured to monitor, using power manager 104, three degrees of field strength using magnetometer 116, three degrees of linear motion using accelerometer 114, and three degrees of angular motion via gyroscope 112, resulting in a nine-degree-of-freedom sensor system capable of tracking the orientation and movements of an object in space via digital sensor output data signals 120, 124, 128.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi to include Sala’s features of adjusting power to the second sensor based on the determined type of movement of the surgical implant, wherein the second sensor is activated during the target type of active movement and not activated during the non-target type of active movement; and receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the target type of active movement. Doing so would achieve significant power savings and avoid missing any movement. (Sala, [0008] and [0042])
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the first sensor is an accelerometer. (see Abstract; Guhaniyogi: “A medical device for implantation within or mounting on a patient's body includes an accelerator unit,”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the first value is a measured acceleration value. (see [0028]; Guhaniyogi: “The processor processes the (raw) acceleration data received from the accelerator unit directly or the acceleration data received from the data memory unit.”)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Sala further teaches wherein sensor processing is off during a first movement. (see [0036]; Sala: “finally, in suspend mode 322, which is a second power save condition, the gyroscope is always turned off or in a non-active state.”)
The same motivation to combine Guhaniyogi and Sala a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, Sala further teaches wherein sensor processing is on during a second movement. (see [0036]; Sala: “In normal mode 302, which may be the default setting, the gyroscope is always turned on”)
The same motivation to combine Guhaniyogi and Sala a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the second sensor is multiple sensors. (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “other sensors such as a gyroscope, heart rate sensor, temperature sensor, or respiration sensor”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the second sensor is at least one of a temperature sensor, a load sensor, and a gyroscope. (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “other sensors such as a gyroscope, heart rate sensor, temperature sensor, or respiration sensor”)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the one or more activity metrics includes body temperature during the target type of active movement. (see [0066]; Guhaniyogi: “if a daily trend of the patient's posture indicates that the percentage of time spent laying down is increasing, it may be used with other device sensors/metrics (e.g. temperature, activity) to screen for fever.”)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the target type of active movement is walking. (see [0094]; Guhaniyogi: “For the purpose of an example, consider a walking activity as a specific activity of the active state.”)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the determined type of movement is at least one of ascending stairs, descending stairs, changing position between horizontal and vertical, and aerobic activity. (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “The specific processing steps and threshold may be defined such that the device will only detect patient motion/activity during events that are generally accepted to be physical activities, such as walking, running, cycling, (stair) climbing, jumping up and down”.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi in view of Sala in view of Gross et al. (US20230293104A1 -hereinafter Gross).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more activity metric includes a load measured at surgical implant during the target type of active movement.
Gross from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more activity metric includes a load measured at surgical implant during the target type of active movement. (see [0966]; Gross: “A method comprising generating a load signal with a load sensor disposed on a tibial insert while a subject in which the tibial insert is implanted is walking; and sampling the load signal.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi and Sala to include Gross’s features of a load measured at surgical implant during the target type of active movement. Doing so would improve patient outcomes in a statistically significant manner. (Gross, [0991])
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi in view of Sala in view of Donofrio et al. (US20070179739A1 -hereinafter Donofrio).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the surgical implant is a knee implant.
Donofrio from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the surgical implant is a knee implant. (see [0002]; Donofrio: “The invention may have particularly useful application to joint prostheses including hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, jaw, and spinal prostheses”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi and Sala to include Donofrio’s features of being a knee implant. Doing so would increase the accurate measurement of implant usage. (Donofrio, [0044])
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the surgical implant is a shoulder implant.
Donofrio from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the surgical implant is a shoulder implant. (see [0002]; Donofrio: “The invention may have particularly useful application to joint prostheses including hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, jaw, and spinal prostheses”)
The same motivation to combine Guhaniyogi, Sala, and Donofrio a set forth for Claim 12 equally applies to Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the surgical implant is a spine implant.
Donofrio from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the surgical implant is a spine implant. (see [0002]; Donofrio: “The invention may have particularly useful application to joint prostheses including hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, jaw, and spinal prostheses”)
The same motivation to combine Guhaniyogi, Sala, and Donofrio a set forth for Claim 12 equally applies to Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Guhaniyogi and Sala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the surgical implant is a hip implant.
Donofrio from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the surgical implant is a hip implant. (see [0002]; Donofrio: “The invention may have particularly useful application to joint prostheses including hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, jaw, and spinal prostheses”)
The same motivation to combine Guhaniyogi, Sala, and Donofrio a set forth for Claim 12 equally applies to Claim 15.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi in view of Sala in view of Brownhill et al. (US20200297244A1 -hereinafter Brownhill).
Regarding Claim 16, Guhaniyogi teaches:
A method for measuring movement of an implant via a measurement device (see Abstract; Guhaniyogi: “A medical device for implantation within or mounting on a patient's body includes an accelerator unit, a data memory unit and a processor which are electrically interconnected.”), the method comprising:
receiving, via at least one processor, a first value from a first sensor on the measurement device (see [0028]; Guhaniyogi: “The processor processes the (raw) acceleration data received from the accelerator unit directly or the acceleration data received from the data memory unit.”),
distinguishing between a target type of active movement of the patient and a non-target type of active movement of the patient based on the first value; (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “The processor is configured to differentiate between an active state and a rest state of the medical device and thereby of the patient's body as the medical device moves with the patient's body. According to the invention, the patient's body is in an active state if the processor determines an actual activity/motion level (of the medical device) above a predefined threshold. If the activity level is below or equal to this threshold, it is assumed that the patient's body is at rest.”)
However, Guhaniyogi does not explicitly teach:
wherein the measurement device is coupled to a musculoskeletal system of a patient;
adjusting power supplied to the second sensor based on the determined patient movement, wherein the second sensor is activated during the target type of active movement and not activated during the non-target type of active movement; and
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the target type of active movement.
Sala from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
adjusting power supplied to the second sensor based on the determined patient movement (see [0040]; Sala: “Upon detecting an event while in suspend mode 322, e.g. a rotation, a shaking event, or detecting an unacceptably low accuracy in magnetometer data, state machine 300 transactions back to normal mode 302.”), wherein the second sensor is activated during the target type of active movement (see [0036]; Sala: “In normal mode 302, which may be the default setting, the gyroscope is always turned on”) and not activated during the non-target type of active movement; and (see [0036]; Sala: “finally, in suspend mode 322, which is a second power save condition, the gyroscope is always turned off or in a non-active state.”)
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the target type of active movement. (see [0025]; Sala: “In one embodiment, power management system 100 is configured to monitor, using power manager 104, three degrees of field strength using magnetometer 116, three degrees of linear motion using accelerometer 114, and three degrees of angular motion via gyroscope 112, resulting in a nine-degree-of-freedom sensor system capable of tracking the orientation and movements of an object in space via digital sensor output data signals 120, 124, 128.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi to include Sala’s features of adjusting power to the second sensor based on the determined type of movement of the surgical implant, wherein the second sensor is activated during the target type of active movement and not activated during the non-target type of active movement; and receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the target type of active movement. Doing so would achieve significant power savings and avoid missing any movement. (Sala, [0008] and [0042])
However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement device is coupled to a musculoskeletal system of a patient;
Brownhill from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the measurement device is coupled to a musculoskeletal system of a patient; (see Abstract; Brownhill: “A sensing insert device (100) is disclosed for measuring a parameter of the muscular-skeletal system.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi and Sala to include Brownhill’s features of the measurement device is coupled to a musculoskeletal system of a patient. Doing so would assure accurate measurement of the applied load, force, pressure, or displacement. (Brownhill, [0045])
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi in view of Kelly et al. (US20210389342A1 -hereinafter Kelly) in view of Sheynblat et al. (US20200029814A1 -hereinafter Sheynblat).
Regarding Claim 28, Guhaniyogi teaches a method of determining a movement of a patient, the method comprising:
determining a threshold sensor value of a first sensor associated with a first active movement type using one or more prior patient datasets; (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “If the processed value is greater than the predefined threshold, the device will indicate that the patient's body is in the active state. The specific processing steps and threshold may be defined such that the device will only detect patient motion/activity during events that are generally accepted to be physical activities, such as walking, running, cycling, (stair) climbing, jumping up and down,”. See [0047]: “The relationship may be, for example, a learned regression model relating Pstep and Phalfstep to Φ from a dataset of accelerometer signals during walking from many patients.”)
However, Guhaniyogi does not explicitly teach:
adjusting power to the second sensor of an implantable measurement device based on a first sensor value exceeds the threshold sensor value;
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor of the implantable measurement device during the first active movement type;
determining a new threshold sensor value associated with a second active movement type using one or more prior patient data sets;
adjusting power to the second sensor when a first sensor value of the first sensor exceeds the new threshold sensor value; and
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the second active movement type.
Kelly from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determining a new threshold sensor value associated with a second active movement type using one or more prior patient data sets; (see [0068]; Kelly: “If the RMS amplitude is greater than the threshold value, the process continues to step 455 where the walking determination unit 106-2-3 determines that the current epoch corresponds to walking.” See [0104]: “In the above embodiments, the device was configured to determine periods of walking of the user. By adjusting the thresholds and other parameters used (e.g. using a higher threshold for magnitude of acceleration, and shorter expected step/stride periods), the device could be configured to detect periods of running.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi to include Kelly’s features of determining a new threshold sensor value associated with a second active movement type using one or more prior patient data sets. Doing so would determine the correct amount of activity of a user. (Kelly, [0002])
However, Guhaniyogi does not explicitly teach:
adjusting power to the second sensor of an implantable measurement device based on a first sensor value exceeds the threshold sensor value;
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor of the implantable measurement device during the first active movement type;
adjusting power to the second sensor when a first sensor value of the first sensor exceeds the new threshold sensor value; and
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the second active movement type.
Sheynblat from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
adjusting power to the second sensor of an implantable measurement device based on a first sensor value exceeds the threshold sensor value; (see [0048]; Sheynblat: “Accelerometer 340 may be pre-programmed and/or preconfigured to detect the movement (change in acceleration) and/or change in the tilt angle of the device incorporating MSMPU 300 as either exceeding, falling below, or being between two thresholds (upper and lower) to trigger power management functions for one or more of the other sensors.” See [0049]: “Block 420 indicates that if the accelerometer detects movement, at block 430 the one or more sensors previously put in sleep mode may be wakened to operate in a normal operational mode.”)
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor of the implantable measurement device during the first active movement type; (see [0049]; Sheynblat: “The accelerometer may also be put into a normal operational mode in order to perform a measurement activity in conjunction with the one or more other sensors, perhaps including a gyroscope and/or a geomagnetic sensor. The various sensors may stay in the normal operational modes until the measurement activity, perhaps including navigational operations for one example, is completed.”)
adjusting power to the second sensor when a first sensor value of the first sensor exceeds the new threshold sensor value; and (see [0048]; Sheynblat: “Accelerometer 340 may be pre-programmed and/or preconfigured to detect the movement (change in acceleration) and/or change in the tilt angle of the device incorporating MSMPU 300 as either exceeding, falling below, or being between two thresholds (upper and lower) to trigger power management functions for one or more of the other sensors.” See [0049]: “Block 420 indicates that if the accelerometer detects movement, at block 430 the one or more sensors previously put in sleep mode may be wakened to operate in a normal operational mode.”)
receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the second active movement type. (see [0049]; Sheynblat: “The accelerometer may also be put into a normal operational mode in order to perform a measurement activity in conjunction with the one or more other sensors, perhaps including a gyroscope and/or a geomagnetic sensor. The various sensors may stay in the normal operational modes until the measurement activity, perhaps including navigational operations for one example, is completed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi and Kelly to include Sheynblat’s features of adjusting power to the second sensor of an implantable measurement device based on a first sensor value exceeds the threshold sensor value; receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor of the implantable measurement device during the first active movement type; adjusting power to the second sensor when a first sensor value of the first sensor exceeds the new threshold sensor value; and receiving one or more activity metrics from the second sensor during the second active movement type. Doing so would reduce the power consumption. (Sheynblat, [0048])
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Guhaniyogi, Kelly, and Sheynblat teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Guhaniyogi further teaches wherein the first sensor is an accelerometer (see Abstract; Guhaniyogi: “A medical device for implantation within or mounting on a patient's body includes an accelerator unit,”) and the second sensor is a gyroscope. (see [0030]; Guhaniyogi: “other sensors such as a gyroscope, heart rate sensor, temperature sensor, or respiration sensor”)
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi in view of Kelly in view of Sheynblat in view of Bae (US 20190150835 A1 -hereinafter Bae).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Guhaniyogi, Kelly, and Sheynblat teaches all the limitations of claim 28 above wherein the implantable measurement device includes a battery (see [0029]; Guhaniyogi: “The medical device may comprise further modules such a power supply such as a battery”),
However, it does not explicitly teach and the method further comprising: monitoring a power level of the implantable measurement device.
Bae from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches and the method further comprising: monitoring a power level of the implantable measurement device. (see [0030]; Bae: “Data reliability transmitted from the transmitter at these power levels may be at least 95%, at least 98%, at least 99%, at least 99.9%, or 100%”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi, Kelly, and Sheynblat to include Bae’s features of determine a type of movement of the surgical implant based on the first data. Doing so would achieve an accurate and non-invasive means of in vivo measurement of conditions. (Bae, [0004])
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guhaniyogi in view of Kelly in view of Sheynblat in view of Bae in view of Aubin et al. (US 20230022710 A1 -hereinafter Aubin).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Guhaniyogi, Kelly, Sheynblat, and BAe teaches all the limitations of claim 30 above; however, it does not explicitly teach: further comprising adjusting a sample rate of the first sensor.
Aubin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising adjusting a sample rate of the first sensor. (see [0876]; Aubin: “an assigned sample rate is changed from a first lower sample rate of the plurality of sample rates to a second higher sample rate of the plurality of sample rates in response to a movement detection event.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Guhaniyogi, Kelly, Sheynblat, and Bae to include Aubin’s features of adjusting a sample rate of the first sensor. Doing so would achieve an accuracy level. (Aubin, [0393])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) of the independent claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morren (US20260007330A1) discloses determining, based on the accelerometer signal, that the patient is in an active period; and causing the sensor to transition from a low-power state to a high-power state in response to determining that the active period has ended.
Ecker (US12194304B2) discloses switching an implantable medical device (IMD) from a first mode to a second mode in relation to signals obtained from internal sensors are described.
Major (US20220346981A1) discloses includes a processor operatively coupled to the sensor and configured to determine, based on the movement of the user, that the user is engaged in walking or running.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/Christopher E. Everett/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights