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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
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
Claims [ 21-40 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Stahmann et al. (US 10722720, IDS), hereinafter "Stahmann", in view of Bocci et al. (US 4891812), hereinafter "Bocci", in further view of Maile et al. (US 20160038747), hereinafter "Maile" ].
As per claim 21, Stahmann significantly teaches a device configured to communicate with a second device using conductive communication, wherein at least one of the device or the second device comprises an implantable medical device (IMD) configured to be implanted in a patient, the device comprising (at least one of the first medical device and the second medical device may be implanted within a patient. [Stahmann PP 0044], MD 310 may be implanted [Stahmann PP 0092])
conductive communication circuitry communicatively coupled to at least three electrodes that are part of or communicatively coupled to the device (MD 320 includes a first electrode 322 , a second electrode 324 and a third electrode 326 [Stahmann PP 0093]) to thereby enable the device to receive a conductive communication message from the second device using each of at least three different conductive communication vectors, wherein each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors comprising a different combination of the at least three electrodes (A particular one the electrode pairs A, B, or C selected for communication, in combination with an electrode pair of the transmitting antenna (e.g. cathode 410 and anode 420 as shown in FIG. 4) can be considered a “communication vector” [Stahmann PP 0095]);
the conductive communication circuitry configured to produce a respective bitstream for each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors to thereby produce at least three separate bitstreams (communication may be simultaneously performed using two or more vectors … communication may be performed using multiple vectors, and the results may be compared. [Stahmann PP 0103]);
and a controller configured to: receive the at least three separate bitstreams from the conductive communication circuitry (communication may be performed using multiple vectors, and the results may be compared. [Stahmann PP 103], processing module 106 may be configured to receive electrical signals from sensing module 102 … processing module 106 may use such received information in determining whether an arrhythmia is occurring or to take particular action in response [Stahmann PP 0073]);
select or produce a valid bitstream based on the at least three separate bitstreams (In some cases, communication may be performed simultaneously using both vectors, and the system may select the communication path with the highest signal strength, the communication path that provided successful transmission, and/or may use any other criteria for selecting from the two or more communication paths. In some cases, a communication may be performed using multiple vectors, and the results may be compared. If there is no difference in the results, then either result may be used. If there is a difference, other criteria may be used to help identify the correct result. [Stahmann PP 0103]);
and at least one of store or use the message data (processing module 106 may store information on and read information from the memory circuit [Stahmann PP 0074], processing module 106 may be configured to receive electrical signals from sensing module 102 … processing module 106 may use such received information in determining whether an arrhythmia is occurring or to take particular action in response [Stahmann PP 0073]);
Stahmann does not explicitly teach “perform error detection on each of the at least three separate bitstreams to thereby determine whether at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free; determine message data included in and/or decoded from the valid bitstream; wherein when the controller determines that none of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free, the controller is configured to produce the valid bitstream by producing a composite bitstream from the at least three separate bitstreams”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the controller determines that none of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free, the controller is configured to produce the valid bitstream by producing a composite bitstream from the at least three separate bitstreams (The microprocessor 106 creates a majority signal by comparing all of the bits. of each of the received digital signals and selecting for the logical state of a majority signal bit the majority "vote" of each of the received digital signals. [Bocci Col 3, l. 33-34], In step 206, the majority signal is generated by making a majority vote, bit by bit, of each of the received signals. [Bocci Col 5, l. 9-10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
Stahmann in view of bocci do not explicitly teach “perform error detection on each of the at least three separate bitstreams to thereby determine whether at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free; determine message data included in and/or decoded from the valid bitstream;”
However, Maile, in an analogous art, teaches perform error detection on each of the at least three separate bitstreams to thereby determine whether at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free (Error check field 1110 may include an error checking code, which the receiving device may use to determine if the received message was corrupted during transmission. For example, the contents of error field 1110 may include bits that are used by the receiving device in a parity check scheme, a checksum scheme, a cyclic redundancy check scheme, and/or some other type of error checking scheme. [Maile PP 0129]);
determine message data included in and/or decoded from the valid bitstream (When an intended receiving device receives the three bit command, that device may match up the received three bits to the commands expressed in Table 1, and may take the requested action based on the identified command. [Maile PP 0133]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Stahmann in view of Bocci incorporate Bocci’s teaching of providing error detection within communication messages, in order to improve communication reliability (Accordingly, the conducted communication voltage pulses used by the devices of system 500 may generally have characteristics that fall within a safe region 710 [Maile PP 0103]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann in view of Bocci’s invention.
As per claim 22, Stahmann significantly teaches further comprising: switches between the conductive communication circuitry and the at least three electrodes that are part of or communicatively coupled to the device (two or more of the electrodes may be effectively shorted together so that the shorted electrodes collectively act as an electrode. For example, and specifically with respect to FIG. 7, electrodes 730 and 740 may be effectively shorted together and may act as a single electrode (e.g. anode), and electrode 710 or electrode 720 may act as the other electrode (e.g. the cathode) [Stahmann PP 0100]); wherein the switches enable the at least three different conductive communication vectors to be electrically coupled to the conductive communication circuitry (In some instances, one vector may be used during a first part of a single communication and a second vector may be used during a second part of the communication [Stahmann PP 0102], in some embodiments, it may be advantageous to use a first vector for part of a communication, and then as one or more devices move relative to one another, such as with the heartbeat and/or patient respiration, switch to a second vector to continue the communication. In some cases, signal strength, error rate and/or communication parameter may be monitored over time, and the vector may be automatically switched if desired. [Stahmann PP 0107]); and wherein the controller is configured to control the switches to thereby enable the device to receive the conductive communication message from the second device using each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors (Processing module 106 can be configured to control the operation of MD 100 . For example, processing module 106 may be configured to receive electrical signals from sensing module 102 … Processing module 106 may additionally control telemetry module 108 to send information to other devices. [Stahmann PP 0073], the vector may be automatically switched if desired. [Stahmann PP 0107]).
As per claim 23, Stahmann does not explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to produce the composite bitstream from the at least three separate bitstreams by identifying common bits in at least a majority of the at least three separate bitstreams”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the controller is configured to produce the composite bitstream from the at least three separate bitstreams by identifying common bits in at least a majority of the at least three separate bitstreams (The microprocessor 106 creates a majority signal by comparing all of the bits. of each of the received digital signals and selecting for the logical state of a majority signal bit the majority "vote" of each of the received digital signals. [Bocci Col 3, l. 33-34], In step 206, the majority signal is generated by making a majority vote, bit by bit, of each of the received signals. [Bocci Col 5, l. 9-10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 24, Stahmann in view of bocci do not explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to perform error detection on the composite bitstream to thereby determine whether the composite bitstream is error-free, and use the composite bitstream as the valid bitstream in response to the composite bitstream being determined to be error- free”
However, Maile, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the controller is configured to perform error detection on the composite bitstream to thereby determine whether the composite bitstream is error-free (Error check field 1110 may include an error checking code, which the receiving device may use to determine if the received message was corrupted during transmission. For example, the contents of error field 1110 may include bits that are used by the receiving device in a parity check scheme, a checksum scheme, a cyclic redundancy check scheme, and/or some other type of error checking scheme. Error check field 1110 may also include an error correction scheme. [Maile PP 0129]), and use the composite bitstream as the valid bitstream in response to the composite bitstream being determined to be error- free (if the receiving device determines that the message was corrupted … the sending device may resend the command message. [Maile PP 0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Stahmann in view of Bocci incorporate Bocci’s teaching of providing error detection within communication messages, in order to improve communication reliability (Accordingly, the conducted communication voltage pulses used by the devices of system 500 may generally have characteristics that fall within a safe region 710 [Maile PP 0103]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann in view of Bocci’s invention.
As per claim 25, Stahmann does not explicitly teach “wherein when the controller determines that at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free, the controller is configured to select as the valid bitstream one of the at least three separate bitstreams that is determined to be error-free”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the controller determines that at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free (each of the received signals is compared to the majority to determine the bit-error-rate (BER) of each of the received signal. [Bocci Col 3, l. 51-53]), the controller is configured to select as the valid bitstream one of the at least three separate bitstreams that is determined to be error-free (the received digital signal with the lowest BER is selected for reception [Bocci Col 2, l. 49-50]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 26, Stahmann significantly teaches the controller is configured to select the conductive communication vector that was used to produce the error-free bitstream as a preferred conductive communication vector for the device to use to receive a further conductive communication message from the second device (A particular one the electrode pairs A, B, or C selected for communication, in combination with an electrode pair of the transmitting antenna (e.g. cathode 410 and anode 420 as shown in FIG. 4) can be considered a “communication vector” [Stahmann PP 0095], If there is a difference, other criteria may be used to help identify the correct result. [Stahmann PP 0103]).
Stahmann does not explicitly teach “wherein when the controller determines that one of the at least three separate bitstreams is determined to be error-free”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the controller determines that one of the at least three separate bitstreams is determined to be error-free (each of the received signals is compared to the majority to determine the bit-error-rate (BER) of each of the received signal. [Bocci Col 3, l. 51-53])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 27, Stahmann does not explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to determine when at least two bitstreams of the at least three separate bitstreams match one another, and in response thereto, determine that the at least two bitstreams that match one another comprise the valid bitstream.”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine when at least two bitstreams of the at least three separate bitstreams match one another (the plurality of received digital signals are combined to form a majority signal. [Bocci Col 2, l. 41-42], The microprocessor 106 creates a majority signal by comparing all of the bits. of each of the received digital signals and selecting for the logical state of a majority signal bit the majority "vote" of each of the received digital signals. [Bocci Col 3, l. 33-34]), and in response thereto, determine that the at least two bitstreams that match one another comprise the valid bitstream (if the majority of the received channels agree that a particular bit is a "1" then the majority bit is a "l ". Conversely, if the majority agree that the bit is a "0", then the majority bit is "0" [Bocci Col 3, l. 37-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 28, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein: the device comprises an external device (MD 100 may not be an implantable medical device. Rather, MD 100 may be a device external to the patient's body [Stahmann PP 0083] MD 320 may be external to the patient [Stahmann PP 0092]); the at least three electrodes, that are part of or communicatively coupled to the device, comprise at least three skin electrodes (MD 320 may include a skin patch including two or more electrodes [Stahmann PP 0092] MD 320 includes a first electrode 322 , a second electrode 324 and a third electrode 326 [Stahmann PP 0093]); and the second device comprises an IMD (at least one of the first medical device and the second medical device may be implanted within a patient. [Stahmann PP 0044] MD 310 may be implanted [Stahmann PP 0092]).
As per claim 29, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein the IMD comprises an intracardiac IMD (In some examples, MD 100 may be an implantable cardiac pacemaker (ICP). In such an example, MD 100 may have one or more leads, for example leads 112 , which are implanted on or within the patient's heart. [Stahmann PP 0078] FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) 200 [Stahmann PP 0084], FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) 200 [Stahmann PP 0084]).
As per claim 30, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein the device comprises a non-vascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (NV-ICD) (In some instances, MD 100 may be a subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) [Stahmann PP 0079]) and the second device comprises an intracardiac IMD (FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) 200 [Stahmann PP 0084], medical system in which an LCP 782 is shown fixed to the interior of the left ventricle of a heart [Stahmann PP 0104]).
As per claim 31, Stahmann significantly teaches A method for use by a first device that is configured to communicate with a second device using conductive communication (communication may be simultaneously performed using two or more vectors … communication may be performed using multiple vectors, and the results may be compared. [Stahmann PP 0103]), wherein the first device includes and/or is communicatively coupled to at least three electrodes (MD 320 includes a first electrode 322 , a second electrode 324 and a third electrode 326 [Stahmann PP 0093]) and can receive a conductive communication message using at least three different conductive communication vectors, wherein each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors comprises a different combination of the at least three electrodes (A particular one the electrode pairs A, B, or C selected for communication, in combination with an electrode pair of the transmitting antenna (e.g. cathode 410 and anode 420 as shown in FIG. 4) can be considered a “communication vector” [Stahmann PP 0095]), wherein the second device includes and/or is communicatively coupled to at least two additional electrodes that can be used to transmit the conductive communication message (MD 320 includes a first electrode 322 , a second electrode 324 and a third electrode 326 [Stahmann PP 0093]), and wherein at least one of the first and second devices comprises an implantable medical device (IMD) implanted in a patient (at least one of the first medical device and the second medical device may be implanted within a patient. [Stahmann PP 0044], MD 310 may be implanted [Stahmann PP 0092]), the method for use by the first device comprising: receiving the conductive communication message from the second device using each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors (communication may be simultaneously performed using two or more vectors. [Stahmann PP 0103]);
producing a respective bitstream, for each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors, to thereby produce at least three separate bitstreams (communication may be performed using multiple vectors, and the results may be compared. [Stahmann PP 103], processing module 106 may be configured to receive electrical signals from sensing module 102 … processing module 106 may use such received information in determining whether an arrhythmia is occurring or to take particular action in response [Stahmann PP 0073])
selecting or producing a valid bitstream based on the at least three separate bitstreams (In some cases, communication may be performed simultaneously using both vectors, and the system may select the communication path with the highest signal strength, the communication path that provided successful transmission, and/or may use any other criteria for selecting from the two or more communication paths. In some cases, a communication may be performed using multiple vectors, and the results may be compared. If there is no difference in the results, then either result may be used. If there is a difference, other criteria may be used to help identify the correct result. [Stahmann PP 0103])
and at least one of storing or using the message data (processing module 106 may store information on and read information from the memory circuit [Stahmann PP 0074], processing module 106 may be configured to receive electrical signals from sensing module 102 … processing module 106 may use such received information in determining whether an arrhythmia is occurring or to take particular action in response [Stahmann PP 0073]).
Stahmann does not explicitly teach “performing error detection on each of the at least three separate bitstreams to thereby determine whether at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free; which includes in response to determining that none of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free, producing the valid bitstream by producing a composite bitstream from the at least three separate bitstreams; determining message data included in and/or decoded from the valid bitstream;”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches which includes in response to determining that none of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free, producing the valid bitstream by producing a composite bitstream from the at least three separate bitstreams (The microprocessor 106 creates a majority signal by comparing all of the bits. of each of the received digital signals and selecting for the logical state of a majority signal bit the majority "vote" of each of the received digital signals. [Bocci Col 3, l. 33-34], In step 206, the majority signal is generated by making a majority vote, bit by bit, of each of the received signals. [Bocci Col 5, l. 9-10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
Stahmann in view of bocci do not explicitly teach “performing error detection on each of the at least three separate bitstreams to thereby determine whether at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free; determining message data included in and/or decoded from the valid bitstream;”
However, Maile, in an analogous art, teaches performing error detection on each of the at least three separate bitstreams to thereby determine whether at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is error-free (Error check field 1110 may include an error checking code, which the receiving device may use to determine if the received message was corrupted during transmission. For example, the contents of error field 1110 may include bits that are used by the receiving device in a parity check scheme, a checksum scheme, a cyclic redundancy check scheme, and/or some other type of error checking scheme. [Maile PP 0129]);
determining message data included in and/or decoded from the valid bitstream (When an intended receiving device receives the three bit command, that device may match up the received three bits to the commands expressed in Table 1, and may take the requested action based on the identified command. [Maile PP 0133]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Stahmann in view of Bocci incorporate Bocci’s teaching of providing error detection within communication messages, in order to improve communication reliability (Accordingly, the conducted communication voltage pulses used by the devices of system 500 may generally have characteristics that fall within a safe region 710 [Maile PP 0103]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann in view of Bocci’s invention.
As per claim 32, Stahmann does not explicitly teach “wherein the producing the composite bitstream comprises identifying common bits in at least a majority of the at least three separate bitstreams.”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the producing the composite bitstream comprises identifying common bits in at least a majority of the at least three separate bitstreams (The microprocessor 106 creates a majority signal by comparing all of the bits. of each of the received digital signals and selecting for the logical state of a majority signal bit the majority "vote" of each of the received digital signals. [Bocci Col 3, l. 33-34], In step 206, the majority signal is generated by making a majority vote, bit by bit, of each of the received signals. [Bocci Col 5, l. 9-10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 33, Stahmann in view of bocci do not explicitly teach “further comprises performing error detection on the composite bitstream to thereby determine whether the composite bitstream is error-free, and using the composite bitstream as the valid bitstream in response to the composite bitstream being determined to be error-free.”
However, Maile, in an analogous art, teaches further comprises performing error detection on the composite bitstream to thereby determine whether the composite bitstream is error-free (Error check field 1110 may include an error checking code, which the receiving device may use to determine if the received message was corrupted during transmission. For example, the contents of error field 1110 may include bits that are used by the receiving device in a parity check scheme, a checksum scheme, a cyclic redundancy check scheme, and/or some other type of error checking scheme. Error check field 1110 may also include an error correction scheme. [Maile PP 0129]), and using the composite bitstream as the valid bitstream in response to the composite bitstream being determined to be error-free (if the receiving device determines that the message was corrupted … the sending device may resend the command message. [Maile PP 0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the combination of Stahmann in view of Bocci incorporate Bocci’s teaching of providing error detection within communication messages, in order to improve communication reliability (Accordingly, the conducted communication voltage pulses used by the devices of system 500 may generally have characteristics that fall within a safe region 710 [Maile PP 0103]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann in view of Bocci’s invention.
As per claim 34, Stahmann does not explicitly teach “further comprising when at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is determined to be error-free, selecting as the valid bitstream one of the at least three separate bitstreams that is determined to be error-free.”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches further comprising when at least one of the at least three separate bitstreams is determined to be error-free (each of the received signals is compared to the majority to determine the bit-error-rate (BER) of each of the received signal. [Bocci Col 3, l. 51-53]), selecting as the valid bitstream one of the at least three separate bitstreams that is determined to be error-free (the received digital signal with the lowest BER is selected for reception [Bocci Col 2, l. 49-50]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 35, Stahmann does not explicitly teach “further comprising determining that at least two bitstreams of the at least three separate bitstreams match one another, and in response thereto, determining that the at least two bitstreams that match one another comprise the valid bitstream.”
However, Bocci, in an analogous art, teaches further comprising determining that at least two bitstreams of the at least three separate bitstreams match one another (the plurality of received digital signals are combined to form a majority signal. [Bocci Col 2, l. 41-42], The microprocessor 106 creates a majority signal by comparing all of the bits. of each of the received digital signals and selecting for the logical state of a majority signal bit the majority "vote" of each of the received digital signals. [Bocci Col 3, l. 33-34]), and in response thereto, determining that the at least two bitstreams that match one another comprise the valid bitstream (if the majority of the received channels agree that a particular bit is a "1" then the majority bit is a "l ". Conversely, if the majority agree that the bit is a "0", then the majority bit is "0" [Bocci Col 3, l. 37-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the medical device disclosed by Stahmann to incorporate Bocci’s teaching of comparing multiple received signals and selecting a signal based on signal quality, in order to improve the overall signal reception quality and assure the best possible signal reception (selects either the received signal having the highest signal quality or, in the alternative, the majority signal to assure the best possible signal reception. [Bocci]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Stahmann’s invention.
As per claim 36, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein the first device includes switches between conductive communication circuitry and the at least three electrodes that are part of or communicatively coupled to the device (two or more of the electrodes may be effectively shorted together so that the shorted electrodes collectively act as an electrode. For example, and specifically with respect to FIG. 7, electrodes 730 and 740 may be effectively shorted together and may act as a single electrode (e.g. anode), and electrode 710 or electrode 720 may act as the other electrode (e.g. the cathode) [Stahmann PP 0100]), wherein the switches enable the at least three different conductive communication vectors to be electrically coupled to the conductive communication circuitry (In some instances, one vector may be used during a first part of a single communication and a second vector may be used during a second part of the communication [Stahmann PP 0102], in some embodiments, it may be advantageous to use a first vector for part of a communication, and then as one or more devices move relative to one another, such as with the heartbeat and/or patient respiration, switch to a second vector to continue the communication. In some cases, signal strength, error rate and/or communication parameter may be monitored over time, and the vector may be automatically switched if desired. [Stahmann PP 0107]), and wherein the method further comprises: controlling the switches to thereby enable the device to receive the conductive communication message from the second device using each of the at least three different conductive communication vectors (Processing module 106 can be configured to control the operation of MD 100 . For example, processing module 106 may be configured to receive electrical signals from sensing module 102 … Processing module 106 may additionally control telemetry module 108 to send information to other devices. [Stahmann PP 0073],the vector may be automatically switched if desired. [Stahmann PP 0107]).
As per claim 37, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein: the first device comprises an external device (MD 100 may not be an implantable medical device. Rather, MD 100 may be a device external to the patient's body [Stahmann PP 0083] MD 320 may be external to the patient [Stahmann PP 0092]); the at least three electrodes, that are part of or communicatively coupled to the first device, comprise at least three skin electrodes (MD 320 may include a skin patch including two or more electrodes [Stahmann PP 0092] MD 320 includes a first electrode 322 , a second electrode 324 and a third electrode 326 [Stahmann PP 0093]); and the second device comprises an IMD (at least one of the first medical device and the second medical device may be implanted within a patient. [Stahmann PP 0044] MD 310 may be implanted [Stahmann PP 0092]).
As per claim 38, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein the IMD comprises an intracardiac IMD (In some examples, MD 100 may be an implantable cardiac pacemaker (ICP). In such an example, MD 100 may have one or more leads, for example leads 112 , which are implanted on or within the patient's heart. [Stahmann PP 0078] FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) 200 [Stahmann PP 0084], FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) 200 [Stahmann PP 0084]).
As per claim 39, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein the first device comprises a non- vascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (NV-ICD) (In some instances, MD 100 may be a subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) [Stahmann PP 0079]).
As per claim 40, Stahmann significantly teaches wherein and the second device comprises an intracardiac IMD (FIG. 2 is an illustration of an exemplary leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) 200 [Stahmann PP 0084], medical system in which an LCP 782 is shown fixed to the interior of the left ventricle of a heart [Stahmann PP 0104]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEM FUAD ALHWAMDEH whose telephone number is (571)272-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/KAREEM FUAD ALHWAMDEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112