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 – 22) in the reply filed on 16 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23 – 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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) 1 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciciarelli et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0021583) in view of Min et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0086129).
Regarding claims 1 – 4 and 12 - 15, Ciciarelli discloses a system and method, comprising: first and second implantable medical devices (IMDs) (e.g. 102 in Fig. 1A) at least one of which comprises a leadless pacemaker (LP) (e.g. ¶ 32 – 34) configured to be implanted in or on a first cardiac chamber (e.g. Fig. 1A); each IMD, of the first and second IMDs, comprising a respective controller, a respective memory, one or more respective sense circuits, one or more respective pulse generators, and a respective pair of electrodes (e.g. Fig. 1B); the one or more pulse generators and the pair of electrodes, of at least the LP, configured to output pacing pulses and output conducted communication pulses (e.g. ¶ 41); the one or more sense circuits and the pair of electrodes, of each IMD, of the first and second IMDs, configured to sense a cardiac electrical signal and sense conducted communication pulses (e.g. ¶ 36, 37, 41, 42); the controller of each IMD, of the first and second IMDs, communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more sense circuits, and the one or more pulse generators, and configured to perform conducted communication with the other IMD during a primary communication window (PCW) of one or more cardiac cycles in accordance with a primary conducted communication protocol (PCCP); the controller of at least one of the first and second IMDs configured to monitor a quality metric of the conducted communication, while the first and second IMDs are performing the conducted communication with one another in accordance with the PCCP (e.g. ¶ 6 – 8); and in response to the quality metric of the conducted communication falling below a corresponding threshold, cause the conducted communication to be performed with the other IMD during an alternative communication window (ACW) of one or more further cardiac cycles (e.g. ¶ 5 – 7), but fails to explicitly recite that the alternative communication windows are selected because of the distance/orientation varies over the cycle as claimed.
Min teaches it is known to use the same LP to LP (i2i) communication so that each of the two leadless pacemakers vary over each cycle and that the controller controls communication pulse timing so pulses are sent in a window when the leadless pacemakers are not in the deaf zone (i.e. move communication to an alternative window in the cardiac cycle) (e.g. ¶ 75-76 and 87 – 88).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ciciarelli’s communication module with that of Min, since such a modification would provide the predictable results optimizing communication between the two leadless pacemakers.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Ciciarelli discloses the first and second IMDs perform conducted communication with one another using the PCCP, the first IMD transmits one or more conducted communication pulses to the second IMD within the PCW that occurs immediately prior to a paced event caused by the first IMD or immediately following a sensed event sensed by the first IMD (e.g. ¶ 7).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ciciarelli discloses the first and second IMDs perform conducted communication with one another during the ACW using the ACCP, the first and second IMDs are also attempting to perform the conducted communication with one another during the PCW (e.g. ¶ 14 – 17).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ciciarelli discloses the first and second IMDs perform conducted communication with one another during the ACW using the ACCP, the first and second IMDs do not also attempt to perform the conducted communication with one another during the PCW (e.g. ¶ 6).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ciciarelli discloses the performing conducted communication comprises one of the first and second IMDs transmitting one or more conducted communication pulses to the other one of the first and second IMDs, and the other one of the first and second IMDs attempting to receive the one or more conducted communication pulses, and wherein the quality metric is based on one or more of thefollowing: a measure of amplitude of at least one of the one or more conducted communication pulses received by one of the first and second IMDs; a magnitude of at least one of the one or more conducted communication pulses received by one of the first and second IMDs; a measure of signal throughput; a measure of signal loss in at least one of the one or more conducted communication pulses received by one of the first and second IMDs; a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of at least one of the one or more conducted communication pulses received by one of the first and second IMDs; a total energy of at one of the one or more conducted communication pulses received by one of the first and second IMDs; or a bit-error-rate (BER) associated with at least one of the one or more conducted communication pulses received by one of the first and second IMDs (e.g. ¶ 69 – 71).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Ciciarelli discloses the first and second IMDs comprise first and second LPs, and wherein: one of the first and second LPs is configured to be implanted in or on an atrial cardiac chamber, and the other one of the first and second LPs is configured to be implanted in or on a ventricular cardiac chamber; or one of the first and second LPs is configured to be implanted in or on a right ventricular cardiac chamber, and the other one of the first and second LPs is configured to be implanted in or on a left ventricular cardiac chamber (e.g. ¶ 5, 20).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Ciciarelli discloses a critical message is sent from one of the first and second IMDs to the other using conducted communication, the critical message is sent during both the PCW and the ACW of a same cardiac cycle to thereby increase a probability that the critical message will be successful received (e.g. ¶ 69 – 71).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Ciciarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Min teaches it is known that in response to the quality metric of the conducted communication falling below the corresponding threshold, at least one of the IMDs selecting the ACW from a plurality of possible ACWs based on a posture of a patient within which the first and second IMDs are implanted (e.g. ¶ 90 – 92). The motivation to combine is the same as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
