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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-12, 19-20, in the reply filed on 11/10/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/25.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 10-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gliner (US 2010/0292754).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 6, 20, Gliner discloses the same invention as claimed (Figure 3 shown above for example), including a system for delivering neurostimulation from a stimulation device (Figure 1), the system comprising: a programming control circuit configured to generate information for programming the stimulation device to deliver the neurostimulation according to a pattern of neurostimulation pulses (Figure 1: 160); and a stimulation programming circuit configured to: receive one or more goal options selected from a plurality of goal options (Figure 3: 204; Paragraph 35: one symptom or subset of symptoms) each including at least one goal for deep brain stimulation (Paragraph 25: deep brain stimulation); select one or more programmability options associated with the received one or more goal options from a plurality of programmability options each allowing one or more aspects of at least one of the pattern of neurostimulation pulses or the delivery of the neurostimulation according to the pattern of neurostimulation pulses to be programmable (Figure 3: 206; see also Figures 4-5); receive programming information required by the selected one or more programmability options (Figure 3: 206; Figures 4-5); and determine the pattern of neurostimulation pulses for the selected one or more goal options using the received programming information (Figure 3: 208, 218, 220).
Regarding claims 2, 10, Gliner discloses a presentation and user input device as recited (Figure 1: 160; see also Figures 3-5; some form of user presentation and user input is implied).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Gliner discloses at least a goal option of multi-symptom control (Figure 3: 204; Paragraph 35: subset of symptoms) and at least a programmability option of various stimulation frequency combinations (Paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 11, Gliner discloses determining stimulation parameters using the presentation and user input as recited (Figures 3-5; some form of user presentation and user input is implied).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gliner (US 2010/0292754) in view of Wechter (US 2017/0050033).
Regarding claims 3, 7-8, Gliner discloses composition of a stimulation program as recited (Figures 3-5). Gliner does not disclose composition of program building blocks as recited. However, Wechter teaches utilizing waveform building blocks defining a segment of a pattern of neurostimulation pulses, in order to more easily compose a complex stimulation program (abstract; Figure 7; Paragraph 44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gliner as taught by Wechter to include program building blocks as recited, in order to more easily compose a complex stimulation program.
Regarding claim 4, Gliner discloses the stimulation programming circuit is configured to determine stimulation parameters using the presentation and user input as recited (Figures 3-5; some form of user presentation and user input is implied).
Regarding claim 9, Gliner discloses scheduling stimulation as recited (Paragraphs 42, 51, 52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steinke (US 2016/0375258) shows programming neurostimulation using clinical goals and programmable options.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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 (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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights