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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2-5, 7-10 are canceled. Currently, claims 1, 6, 11-15 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed December 17, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vallapureddy et al. (US 2006/0031378).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 21-22 recite, “at least one external device using unique identifier within the communication messages” and should instead recite, “at least one external device using a unique identifier within the communication messages”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 18-19 recite, “at least one external device using unique identifier within the communication messages” and should instead recite, “at least one external device using a unique identifier within the communication messages”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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, 6, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2020/0337563) in view of Von Arx et al. (US 2012/0209342), Schilling et al. (US 2019/0282819) and Vallapureddy et al. (US 2006/0031378).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Anderson discloses a communication system (fig. 1) and method for establishing an intra-body communication, comprising: a multiplicity of implantable medical devices 102a-b, each of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices comprising communication circuitry ([0042]) for communicating with another of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices using a first signaling technique (“conductive communication”[0039], [0042]); and at least one external device 109, 122 or 622 (fig. 6a-b) comprising first communication circuitry 708 ([0108]; fig. 7) for communicating with the multiplicity of implantable medical devices using said first signaling technique (“The electrodes 108 can also be used to perform conductive communication with an external device, such as the programmer 109 and/or the user-wearable device 122” [0067], [0078]) and second communication circuitry 720 ([0113]; fig. 7) for communicating with a remote system (“base station (e.g., 139 in FIG. 1A)” [0100]; “handheld computer or terminal” [0087]) using a second signaling technique different than the first signaling technique (“the user-wearable device 622 can wirelessly communicate with a base station (e.g., 139 in FIG. 1A)” [0100]; “external programmer 109 can include a secondary link, for example either wireless or through a cable, to another display device, such as a handheld computer or terminal. The secondary link can also include communication over a local area network or the internet for display at a remote terminal.” [0087]); wherein the at least one external device 122 is configured to be worn on a patient’s body (fig. 1a).
Anderson discloses the first communication circuitry of the at least external device is configured to communicate with each of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices (“The electrodes 108 can also be used to perform conductive communication with an external device, such as the programmer 109 and/or the user-wearable device 122” [0067], [0078]) but does not expressly disclose wherein the first signaling technique is based on a first physical layer signaling using ultrasonic signals; wherein the first communication circuitry of the at least one external device is configured to communicate with each of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices using said first signaling technique. Von Arx et al. teaches a known communication link between two implantable medical devices 110, 120 and between implantable medical device 110 and an external device comprises using ultrasonic signals (“The acoustic signals usable for intra-body communication purposes include audible and ultrasonic signals” [0040]; “telemetry link 180 is another acoustic couple” [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson to try using ultrasonic signals as the first signaling technique as taught by Von Arx et al. as it is a known technique used to improve similar devices in the same way ([0040], [0042]) the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable.
Anderson discloses wireless signals ([0087]) but does not expressly disclose wherein the second signaling technique is based on a Bluetooth technique, a Zigbee technique, an NFC technique or a WiFi technique. Schilling et al. teaches a known communication link between an external device 116 and a remote system 120 includes a Bluetooth technique, a Zigbee technique, an NFC technique or a WiFi technique ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson to try using a Bluetooth technique, a Zigbee technique, an NFC technique or a WiFi technique as the second signaling technique as taught by Schilling et al. as it is a known technique used to improve similar devices in the same way ([0039]) the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable.
Anderson does not expressly disclose a common communication protocol is used for the communication in between the implantable medical devices and the at least one external device using unique identifier within the communication messages to identify each of the multiplicity of the implantable medical devices and the at least one external device. However Applicant’s own specification references Vallapureddy et al. in paragraph [0014] teaching uniquely assigned identifiers for a plurality of implantable devices in an intra-body network. Vallapureddy et al. further teaches a physical protocol layer used for communication in between implantable medical devices and at least one external device ([0015]) using unique identifier 307 within communication messages 301 to identify each of the multiplicity of the implantable medical devices 103, 116a and the at least one external device (fig. 11; [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson to include a common communication protocol between the implantable medical devices and the at least one external device using unique identifier within the communication messages to identify each of the multiplicity of the implantable medical devices and the at least one external device as taught by Vallapureddy et al. in order to provide more secure transmission of messages that are easy for devices to identify and respond to, the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses wherein the at least one external device 122 is configured to externally contact a patient (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson does not expressly disclose a communication device to be coupled to the at least one external device for establishing a data transmission between the at least one external device and the remote system using the second signaling technique. Schilling et al. teaches a known communication link between an external device 116 and a remote system 120 can include electromagnetic induction-based wireless communication technology, where a communication device (“two closely placed coils”) is coupled to the at least one external device for establishing a data transmission between the at least one external device and the remote system ([0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson to try using electromagnetic induction-based wireless communication technology as the second signaling technique, where a communication device (“coil”) is coupled to the at least one external device for establishing a data transmission between the at least one external device and the remote system as taught by Schilling et al. as it is a known technique used to improve similar devices in the same way ([0040]) the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses wherein at least one of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices 102a-b is a cardiac stimulation device ([0036-0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses wherein at least one of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices is a leadless cardiac stimulation device ([0036-0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson discloses wherein the at least one of the multiplicity of implantable medical devices is a sub-cutaneous cardiac loop recorder or a bio-sensor for measuring the blood pressure ([0117], [0122], [0129-0132]).
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