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 Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/4/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) In par. 4, “to reform high voltage capacitor to maintenance a relative low charge time” should be corrected for grammar, 2) in par. 35, the term “patent” should be corrected to “patient”, and “character” to “characteristic”, 3) in par. 36, “FORMONITORING” should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: 1) in claims 2-8, the terms “processers” should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0027319 by Rossing.
Regarding Claim 1, Rossing discloses an implantable medical device (e.g. abstract: IMD) comprising:
a processor (e.g. ¶ 33, Fig. 2: IMD includes a processor, such as processor 70); and
a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores program instructions, wherein the program instructions are executable by the one or more processors (e.g. ¶ 33, Fig. 2: processor 70 and memory 72) to:
obtain an initial capacitor maintenance time interval for performing maintenance on a capacitor of the IMD (e.g. ¶ 5, 13, 44: IMDs have an initial capacitor reform/maintenance interval or scheduled time);
obtain characteristics of interest related to the capacitor (e.g. ¶ 6-7: a deformation factor of the capacitor is calculated based on a measured charge interval of the capacitor to a first energy level); and
adjust the initial capacitor maintenance time interval to a first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest (e.g. ¶ 7, Fig. 6-8: the reformation interval/schedule, or “time for the next reformation” is adjusted based on the deformation factor of the capacitor, see steps 161-162; Also see, abstract, ¶¶ 11,15,26,44,51,52,58-59,63).
Regarding Claim 2, Rossing discloses the IMD of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a health index of the capacitor based on the characteristics of interest related to the capacitor and adjust the initial capacitor maintenance time interval to the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the capacitor (e.g. ¶ 7, Fig. 6-8: the reformation interval/schedule, or “time for the next reformation” is adjusted based on the deformation factor of the capacitor, which is a health index of the capacitor, see steps 161-162).
Regarding Claim 6, Rossing discloses the IMD of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to perform maintenance on the capacitor when the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval is reached (e.g. ¶ 5, 13, 44: capacitors are reformed at the schedule reformation time).
Regarding Claim 7, Rossing discloses the IMD of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to obtain health data related to the capacitor during performance of the maintenance and determine health of the capacitor in response to the maintenance (e.g. ¶24: the deformation factor is obtained during the reformation process).
Regarding Claim 8, Rossing discloses the IMD of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a second adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the health data (e.g. ¶ 24, 52: the adjustment is repeated at least during each reformation process, in some embodiment, or each shock delivery in some embodiments).
Regarding Claim 17, Rossing discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable code (¶12: computer-readable medium) to:
obtain an initial capacitor maintenance time interval for performing maintenance on a capacitor of the IMD (e.g. ¶ 5, 13, 44: IMDs have an initial capacitor reform/maintenance interval or scheduled time);
obtain characteristics of interest related to the capacitor (e.g. ¶ 6-7: a deformation factor of the capacitor is calculated based on a measured charge interval of the capacitor to a first energy level); and
adjust the initial capacitor maintenance time interval to a first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest (e.g. ¶ 7, Fig. 6-8: the reformation interval/schedule, or “time for the next reformation” is adjusted based on the deformation factor of the capacitor, see steps 161-162; Also see, abstract, ¶¶ 11,15,26,44,51,52,58-59,63).
Regarding Claim 18, Rossing discloses the computer program product of claim 17, further configured to determine a health index of the capacitor based on the characteristics of interest related to the capacitor and adjust the initial capacitor maintenance time interval to the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the capacitor (e.g. ¶ 7, Fig. 6-8: the reformation interval/schedule, or “time for the next reformation” is adjusted based on the deformation factor of the capacitor, see steps 161-162; Also see, abstract, ¶¶ 11,15,26,44,51,52,58-59,63).
Claims 1, 3-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,792,188 by Starkweather.
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Starkweather discloses an implantable medical device (e.g. abstract: ICD) comprising:
a processor (e.g. 5:42-60: microprocessor); and
a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores program instructions, wherein the program instructions are executable by the one or more processors (e.g. 5:42-60: microprocessor and memory) to:
obtain an initial capacitor maintenance time interval for performing maintenance on a capacitor of the IMD (e.g. 17:33-37: initial reformation interval);
obtain characteristics of interest related to the patient (e.g. 17:38-56: arrhythmia is detected or predicted); and
adjust the initial capacitor maintenance time interval to a first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest (e.g. 17:33-67: the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia, and postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient).
Regarding Claim 3, Starkweather teaches the IMD of claim 2, wherein the one or more processers are further configured to determine a potential episode of a patient based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient and adjust the first adjusted capacitor maintenance interval to provide a second adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient (e.g. 17:33-67: the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia, and postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient).
Regarding Claim 4, Starkweather teaches the IMD of claim 3, wherein the first adjusted capacitor maintenance interval is different than the second adjusted capacitor maintenance interval (e.g. 17:35-42: about one day is added to the time interval, and in general, thus the two intervals are different).
Regarding Claim 5, Starkweather teaches the IMD of claim 1, wherein the one or more processers are further configured to determine a potential episode of a patient based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient and adjust the initial adjusted capacitor maintenance interval to provide the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient (e.g. 17:33-67: the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia, and postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient).
Regarding Claim 6, Starkweather discloses the IMD of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to perform maintenance on the capacitor when the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval is reached (e.g. 17:33-37: capacitors are reformed at the schedule reformation time).
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.
Claims 3-6, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossing, as applied to Claims 1-2 and 17-18, in view of Starkweather.
Regarding Claim 3, Rossing discloses the IMD of claim 2, yet does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine a potential episode of a patient based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient and adjust the first adjusted capacitor maintenance interval to provide a second adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient.
However, Starkweather teaches an analogous ICD, wherein the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia (e.g. abstract, 17:33-67). Starkweather also teaches postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient (17:50-56).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adjustment to increase the scheduled time for reforming the capacitor in response to an anticipated or detected arrhythmia or a combination of arrhythmia detection along with a delivery of maximum shock therapy prior to reformation, in a device according to the teachings of Rossing, as taught by Starkweather, in order to predictably reform the capacitor, and eliminate potential interference between reforming and shocking and/or potential damage to the patient, as suggested by Starkweather (2:35-58, 17:57-67).
Regarding Claim 4, Rossing as modified in Claim 3 discloses the IMD of claim 3, wherein the first adjusted capacitor maintenance interval is different than the second adjusted capacitor maintenance interval (e.g. Starkweather, 17:35-42: about one day is added to the time interval, and in general, days are added to the time interval under the modification by Starkweather, thus the two intervals are different).
Regarding Claim 5, Rossing discloses the IMD of claim 1, yet does not disclose, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a potential episode of a patient based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient and adjust the initial adjusted capacitor maintenance interval to provide the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient.
However, Starkweather teaches an analogous ICD, wherein the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia (e.g. abstract, 17:33-67). Starkweather also teaches postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient (17:50-56).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adjustment to increase the scheduled time for reforming the capacitor in response to an anticipated or detected arrhythmia or a combination of arrhythmia detection along with a delivery of maximum shock therapy prior to reformation, in a device according to the teachings of Rossing, as taught by Starkweather, in order to predictably reform the capacitor, and eliminate potential interference between reforming and shocking and/or potential damage to the patient, as suggested by Starkweather (2:35-58).
Regarding Claim 19, Rossing teaches the computer program product of claim 18, yet does not teach that it is further configured to determine a potential episode of a patient based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient and adjust the first adjusted capacitor maintenance interval to provide a second adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient.
However, Starkweather teaches an analogous ICD, wherein the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia (e.g. abstract, 17:33-67). Starkweather also teaches postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient (17:50-56).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adjustment to increase the scheduled time for reforming the capacitor in response to an anticipated or detected arrhythmia or a combination of arrhythmia detection along with a delivery of maximum shock therapy prior to reformation, in a device according to the teachings of Rossing, as taught by Starkweather, in order to predictably reform the capacitor, and eliminate potential interference between reforming and shocking and/or potential damage to the patient, as suggested by Starkweather (2:35-58, 17:57-67).
Regarding Claim 20, Rossing teaches the computer program product of claim 17, yet does not disclose that it is further configured to determine a potential episode of a patient based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient and adjust the initial adjusted capacitor maintenance interval to provide the first adjusted capacitor maintenance time interval based on the characteristics of interest related to the patient.
However, Starkweather teaches an analogous ICD, wherein the scheduled time for the next capacitor reformation is postponed by a specified amount when the ICD anticipates or detects a potential or actual arrhythmia (e.g. abstract, 17:33-67). Starkweather also teaches postponing the schedules reformation time by a specified amount if an arrhythmia is detected and a maximum energy shock therapy has been delivered to the patient (17:50-56).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adjustment to increase the scheduled time for reforming the capacitor in response to an anticipated or detected arrhythmia or a combination of arrhythmia detection along with a delivery of maximum shock therapy prior to reformation, in a device according to the teachings of Rossing, as taught by Starkweather, in order to predictably reform the capacitor, and eliminate potential interference between reforming and shocking and/or potential damage to the patient, as suggested by Starkweather (2:35-58, 17:57-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANOLIS Y PAHAKIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, 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 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.
/MANOLIS PAHAKIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights