DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 42, 53 and 64 have been amended. Claims 1-41 were previously canceled. Currently, claims 42-71 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues support is provided for claim 53 through various paragraphs. However none of the cited paragraphs recite the programming device performing the steps of rendering a graphical representation, re-rendering a graphical representation, and rendering an indication on the graphical display. While the originally filed specification states the programming device comprises a display 22 that may be a touch screen display ([0048]) nowhere does it state that graphical representations or indications can be provided on this display 22 of the programming device.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed April 29, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 42-71 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 42-43, 45, 47, 50-52, 64-65, 67 and 69 as being obvious over Graupe et al. (US 5,081,989) and Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0204132) is withdrawn. However while applicant acknowledges claims 42-47, 49-52, 64-69 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bourget et al. (US 2007/0150026) in view of Graupe et al. (US 5,081,989) and Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0204132), the applicant has provided no arguments against the combination of references as a whole. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 53-71 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.
Regarding claim 53, as stated in the previous Office action, there is no support in the originally filed specification and originally filed claims for a processor to exchange information with a programming device having a display, wherein the information exchanged with the programming device causes the programming device to perform the recited steps of lines 10-20. The specification does not recite the programming device performing the steps of rendering a graphical representation, re-rendering a graphical representation, and rendering an indication on the graphical display. While the originally filed specification states the programming device comprises a display 22 that may be a touch screen display ([0048]) nowhere does it state that graphical representations or indications can be provided on this display 22 of the programming device.
Claims 54-63 are rejected to for being dependent on an for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 53.
Regarding claim 64, the amendment, “render, via a graphical display of the programming device, a graphical representation…” also lacks support in the originally filed specification and claims. While the originally filed specification states the programming device comprises a display 22 that may be a touch screen display ([0048]) nowhere does it state that graphical representations or indications can be provided on this display 22 of the programming device.
Claims 65-71 are rejected to for being dependent on an for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 64.
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 42-71 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 42 has been amended to recite both a graphical display and a graphical representation (“render, via a graphical display, a graphical representation” line 6). Lines 14-15 then state, “rendering an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient… wherein a posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant intends for an indication to be rendered on the graphical display which can be broadly interpreted as anywhere on the graphical display including an indication not located on the graphical representation, or if the applicant intended for the indication to be rendered on what is now amended to be the “graphical representation”.
Claims 43-52 are rejected to for being dependent on an for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 42.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the graphical display.. rendered on the graphical display" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the applicant intended for “graphical display” to also be amended to state, “graphical representation” as amended in lines 10 and 13, or if the applicant now intends for “graphical display” to reference the display of the programming device (“a programming device having a display” line 8).
Claims 54-63 are rejected to for being dependent on an for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 53.
Claim 64 has been amended to recite both a graphical display and a graphical representation (“render, via a graphical display of the programming device, a graphical representation” lines 11-12). Lines 21-22 then state, “render an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient… wherein a posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant intends for an indication to be rendered on the graphical display which can be broadly interpreted as anywhere on the graphical display including an indication not located on the graphical representation, or if the applicant intended for the indication to be rendered on what is now amended to be the “graphical representation”.
Claims 65-71 are rejected to for being dependent on an for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 64.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 42-47, 49-52 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourget et al. (US 2007/0150026) in view of Graupe et al. (US 5,081,989) and Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0204132).
Regarding claim 42, 44, 49, 51-52, Bourget et al. discloses a method comprising: programming a device to deliver a neurostimulation therapy to a patient ([0026]); delivering the neurostimulation therapy to the patient with the device based, at least in part, on a posture state of the patient 154, 156 (fig. 10) and a programmable delay time associated with the posture state of the patient (“suspend delivery of therapy for a period of time. The predetermined period of time may be chosen such that the patient parameter is likely to be stable at the end of the period, e.g., the patient is likely to be stably within the new posture or activity” [0087-0089]); continuing to deliver the neurostimulation therapy to the patient with the device based, at least in part, on the posture state of the patient (fig. 10) and the programmable delay time ([0087-0089]); and wherein the programmable delay time delays a change in the neurostimulation therapy based on the change in posture of the patient ([0087-0089]).
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose render, via a graphical display, a graphical representation comprising a first axis associated with time and a second axis associated with a measure of the neurostimulation therapy as programmed and delivered to the patient and the programmable delay time associated with the posture state of the patient; re-render the graphical representation as the neurostimulation therapy continues to be delivered to the patient; rendering an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient, wherein a posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display to indicate a point in time when the posture state of the patient has changed with information describing the neurostimulation therapy being delivered to the patient. Graupe et al. teaches rendering on a graphical display, a graphical representation comprising a first axis (x-axis) associated with a time and second axis (y-axis) associated with a measure (“stimulus level”) of the neurostimulation therapy (fig. 7a-b); update the graphical display as the neurostimulation therapy is delivered to the patient via the one or more electrodes as programmed and delivered to the patient (fig. 7a-b; col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 4; updating by displaying the stimulus levels at more than one instantaneous moment); render an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient (“Note that at the time indicated, T.sub.SD indicating the time of the sit-down command from the standing position as received and recognized by the computer, that the stimulus levels to both the right and left quadriceps muscles are increased, by between ten to twenty percent preferably, for a short time duration (on the order of seconds) prior to decreasing the stimulus level by ramping the level of the stimulus signals to the right and left quadriceps to the zero level of full sitting” col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 4), wherein the posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display to indicate a point in time where the posture state of the patient has changed along with information describing the neurostimulation therapy being delivered to the patient (fig. 7a-b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to include the graphical representation on a graphical display comprising all the information about the neurostimulation and the posture state of the patient (including any delay times associated with the posture changes disclosed by Bourget et al.) as taught by Graupe et al. in order to provide a visual presentation of the delivered stimulation therapy based at least in part on the posture state of the patient to better assist the user in reviewing the therapy.
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose recording the posture state indication in a posture state history file. Suzuki et al. teaches determining posture state via an acceleration sensor 1036 ([0070]) and recording the posture state in a history file 1011 along with measurement times ([0098]), this posture state also provided on a graphical display, along with other provided data, to indicate a point in time where the posture state of the patient has changed ([0148], fig. 8a, 9a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to record and store the posture state indication in a posture state history file as taught by Suzuki et al. in order to allow for the recall of saved information when desired.
Regarding claim 43, Bourget et al. in view of Graupe et al. discloses the neurostimulation therapy comprises an electrical stimulation and wherein the measure comprises an amplitude of the neurostimulation therapy (col. 6, lines 61-65).
Regarding claims 45-47, Bourget et al. discloses the posture state indication is obtained by one or more sensors (“accelerometer”) and determined according to a defined posture vector ([0078]), wherein the one or more sensors is associated with a lead connected to an implantable medical device ([0057]).
Regarding claim 50, Bourget et al. discloses wherein the neurostimulation therapy is spinal cord stimulation therapy ([0028]) and wherein the posture state indication is used to provide subsequent closed loop neurostimulation therapy (“As a patient changes posture, the stimulation may need to be adjusted in order to maintain efficacy.” [0026]).
Claim 48 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourget et al. (US 2007/0150026) in view of Graupe et al. (US 5,081,989) and Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0204132) and further in view of Singhal et al. (US 2005/0060001).
Regarding claim 48, Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the information comprises a patient’s response to the neurostimulation therapy in the posture state based on received data. Singhal et al. teaches determining information of a patient’s posture state over time (“activity level of patient 14” [0069]; fig. 8) based on received data 42 ([0043]), this information comprising a patient’s response to neurostimulation therapy ([0068-0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to include information comprising a patient’s response to the neurostimulation therapy in the posture state based on received data such as continual posture state data (fig. 8) as taught by Singhal et al. in order to better monitor and track the patient’s posture as neurostimulation therapy is being delivered, and to ensure the detected posture is appropriate for the therapy being currently delivered.
Claims 53-69, 71, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourget et al. (US 2007/0150026) in view of Graupe et al. (US 5,081,989), Singhal et al. (US 2005/0060001) and Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0204132).
Regarding claim 53, 55, 60, 62-63, Bourget et al. discloses a device comprising: a processor 34; a memory 36 coupled with the processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, enable the processor to: control delivery of a neurostimulation therapy to the patient based, at least in part, on a posture state of the patient 154, 156 (fig. 10) and a programmable delay time associated with the posture state of the patient (“suspend delivery of therapy for a period of time. The predetermined period of time may be chosen such that the patient parameter is likely to be stable at the end of the period, e.g., the patient is likely to be stably within the new posture or activity” [0087-0089]); and wherein the programmable delay time delays a change in the neurostimulation therapy based on the change in posture state of the patient ([0087-0089]).
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose render a graphical representation comprising a first axis associated with time and a second axis associated with a measure of the neurostimulation therapy and the programmable delay time associated with the posture state of the patient; re-render the graphical representation as the neurostimulation therapy continues to be delivered to the patient; and render an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient, wherein a posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display to indicate a point in time when the posture state of the patient has changed with information describing the neurostimulation therapy being delivered to the patient. Graupe et al. teaches render a graphical display comprising a first axis (x-axis) associated with a time and second axis (y-axis) associated with a measure (“stimulus level”) of the neurostimulation therapy (fig. 7a-b); re-render the graphical display as the neurostimulation therapy is delivered to the patient (fig. 7a-b; col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 4; re-rendering by displaying the stimulus levels at more than one instantaneous moment); render an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient (“Note that at the time indicated, T.sub.SD indicating the time of the sit-down command from the standing position as received and recognized by the computer, that the stimulus levels to both the right and left quadriceps muscles are increased, by between ten to twenty percent preferably, for a short time duration (on the order of seconds) prior to decreasing the stimulus level by ramping the level of the stimulus signals to the right and left quadriceps to the zero level of full sitting” col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 4), wherein the posture state indication is provided on the graphical display to indicate a point in time where the posture state of the patient has changed along with information describing the neurostimulation therapy being delivered to the patient (fig. 7a-b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to include the graphical display comprising all the information about the neurostimulation and the posture state of the patient (including any delay times associated with the posture changes disclosed by Bourget et al.) as taught by Graupe et al. in order to provide a visual presentation of the delivered stimulation therapy based at least in part on the posture state of the patient to better assist the user in reviewing the therapy.
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose exchange information with a programming device having a display, wherein the information exchanged with the programming device causes the programming device to perform the above described rendering steps. Singhal et al. teaches it is known in the art to transmit data from one device to a clinician programmer and presented to the clinician via display ([0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to incorporate a programming device such as a clinician programmer for exchanging information with the device as taught by Singhal et al., wherein the information exchanged causes the programming device to perform the claimed rendering on a display, in order to better communicate the information to the clinician through the clinician interface.
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose recording the posture state indication in a posture state history file. Suzuki et al. teaches determining posture state via an acceleration sensor 1036 ([0070]) and recording the posture state in a history file 1011 along with measurement times ([0098]), this posture state also provided on a graphical display, along with other provided data, to indicate a point in time where the posture state of the patient has changed ([0148], fig. 8a, 9a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to record and store the posture state indication in a posture state history file as taught by Suzuki et al. in order to allow for the recall of saved information when desired.
Regarding claim 54, Bourget et al. in view of Graupe et al. discloses the neurostimulation therapy comprises an electrical stimulation and wherein the measure comprises an amplitude of the neurostimulation therapy (col. 6, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 56-58, Bourget et al. discloses the posture state indication is obtained by one or more sensors (“accelerometer”) and determined according to a defined posture vector ([0078]), wherein the one or more sensors is associated with a lead connected to an implantable medical device ([0057]).
Regarding claims 59, Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the information comprises a patient’s response to the neurostimulation therapy in the posture state based on received data. Singhal et al. teaches determining information of a patient’s posture state over time (“activity level of patient 14” [0069]; fig. 8) based on received data 42 ([0043]), this information comprising a patient’s response to neurostimulation therapy ([0068-0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to include information comprising a patient’s response to the neurostimulation therapy in the posture state based on received data such as continual posture state data (fig. 8) as taught by Singhal et al. in order to better monitor and track the patient’s posture as neurostimulation therapy is being delivered, and to ensure the detected posture is appropriate for the therapy being currently delivered.
Regarding claim 61, Bourget et al. discloses wherein the posture state indication is used to provide subsequent closed loop neurostimulation therapy (“As a patient changes posture, the stimulation may need to be adjusted in order to maintain efficacy.” [0026]).
Regarding claims 64, 66, Bourget et al. discloses a device and system comprising: one or more electrodes 30a-e (fig. 2); positioned to deliver neurostimulation therapy (“spinal cord stimulation” [0028]) proximal to a spine of a patient (fig. 1); a processor 34; a memory 36 coupled with the processor, wherein the memory includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, enable the processor to: communicate with a programming device 20 to deliver neurostimulation to a patient (fig. 1; [0026]); control delivery of the neurostimulation therapy by the one or more electrodes, based at least in part, on a posture state of the patient 154, 156 (fig. 10) and a programmable delay time associated with the posture state of the patient (“suspend delivery of therapy for a period of time. The predetermined period of time may be chosen such that the patient parameter is likely to be stable at the end of the period, e.g., the patient is likely to be stably within the new posture or activity” [0087-0089]) and continuing to deliver the neurostimulation therapy to the patient with the device based, at least in part, on the posture state of the patient (fig. 10) and the programmable delay time ([0087-0089]); and wherein the programmable delay time delays a change in the neurostimulation therapy based on the change in posture state of the patient ([0087-0089]).
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose render, a graphical representation comprising a first axis associated with time and a second axis associated with a measure of the neurostimulation therapy and the programmable delay time associated with the posture state of the patient; re-render the graphical representation as the neurostimulation therapy continues to be delivered to the patient via the one or more electrodes as programmed and delivered to the patient; rendering an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient, wherein a posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display to indicate a point in time when the posture state of the patient has changed with information describing the neurostimulation therapy being delivered to the patient. Graupe et al. teaches rendering, via a graphical display, a graphical representation comprising a first axis (x-axis) associated with a time and second axis (y-axis) associated with a measure (“stimulus level”) of the neurostimulation therapy (fig. 7a-b) during the entire time of stimulation; update the graphical display as the neurostimulation therapy is delivered to the patient via the one or more electrodes as programmed and delivered to the patient (fig. 7a-b; col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 4; updating by displaying the stimulus levels at more than one instantaneous moment); render an indication on the graphical display of the posture state of the patient (“Note that at the time indicated, T.sub.SD indicating the time of the sit-down command from the standing position as received and recognized by the computer, that the stimulus levels to both the right and left quadriceps muscles are increased, by between ten to twenty percent preferably, for a short time duration (on the order of seconds) prior to decreasing the stimulus level by ramping the level of the stimulus signals to the right and left quadriceps to the zero level of full sitting” col. 8, line 60 to col. 9, line 4), wherein the posture state indication is rendered on the graphical display to indicate a point in time where the posture state of the patient has changed along with information describing the neurostimulation therapy being delivered to the patient (fig. 7a-b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to include a rendering of a graphical representation comprising all the information about the neurostimulation and the posture state of the patient (including any delay times associated with the posture changes disclosed by Bourget et al.) as taught by Graupe et al. in order to provide a visual presentation of the delivered stimulation therapy based at least in part on the posture state of the patient to better assist the user in reviewing the therapy.
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose the rendering and re-rendering of the graphical representation is on a graphical display of the programming device. Singhal et al. teaches it is known in the art to transmit data from one device to a clinician programmer and presented to the clinician via display ([0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to incorporate a programming device such as a clinician programmer for exchanging information with the device as taught by Singhal et al., wherein the information exchanged causes the programming device to perform the claimed rendering on a display, in order to better communicate the information to the clinician through the clinician interface.
Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose recording the posture state indication in a posture state history file. Suzuki et al. teaches determining posture state via an acceleration sensor 1036 ([0070]) and recording the posture state in a history file 1011 along with measurement times ([0098]), this posture state also provided on a graphical display, along with other provided data, to indicate a point in time where the posture state of the patient has changed ([0148], fig. 8a, 9a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to record and store the posture state indication in a posture state history file as taught by Suzuki et al. in order to allow for the recall of saved information when desired.
Regarding claim 65, Bourget et al. in view of Graupe et al. discloses the neurostimulation therapy comprises an electrical stimulation and wherein the measure comprises an amplitude of the neurostimulation therapy (col. 6, lines 61-65).
Regarding claims 67-69, Bourget et al. discloses the posture state indication is obtained by one or more sensors (“accelerometer”) and determined according to a defined posture vector ([0078]), wherein the one or more sensors is associated with a lead connected to an implantable medical device ([0057]).
Regarding claim 71, Bourget et al. discloses wherein the neurostimulation therapy is spinal cord stimulation therapy ([0028]) and wherein the posture state indication is used to provide subsequent closed loop neurostimulation therapy (“As a patient changes posture, the stimulation may need to be adjusted in order to maintain efficacy.” [0026]).
Claim 70 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourget et al. (US 2007/0150026) in view of Graupe et al. (US 5,081,989) Singhal et al. (US 2005/0060001) and Suzuki et al. (US 2003/0204132) and further in view of Singhal et al. (US 2005/0060001).
Regarding claim 70, Bourget et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the information comprises a patient’s response to the neurostimulation therapy in the posture state based on received data. Singhal et al. teaches determining information of a patient’s posture state over time (“activity level of patient 14” [0069]; fig. 8) based on received data 42 ([0043]), this information comprising a patient’s response to neurostimulation therapy ([0068-0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bourget et al. to include information comprising a patient’s response to the neurostimulation therapy in the posture state based on received data such as continual posture state data (fig. 8) as taught by Singhal et al. in order to better monitor and track the patient’s posture as neurostimulation therapy is being delivered, and to ensure the detected posture is appropriate for the therapy being currently delivered.
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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights