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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 7, 10, 13 – 15, 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetz et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0235472 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 15 and 20, Goetz discloses a method and system comprising: a medical device (e.g. 14); and an external programming apparatus (e.g. 20), comprising: communication circuitry (e.g. ¶ 52); a display screen (e.g. 22); and processing circuitry configured to: receive stored prior session data from an implantable medical device (IMD) (e.g. ¶ 18 – 19), the prior session data comprising information related to one or more prior sessions with the IMD (e.g. ¶ 489); operate in a configuration in which the apparatus is disconnected from a programming session that enables communication between the apparatus and the IMD (e.g. ¶ 115 – 117; the display of guidance is based on analysis of a stored programming history. Therefore, the medical device would not need to be connected to the apparatus) , wherein, in the configuration, the processing circuitry is configured to: control a display to present a graphical user interface (GUI) to present information related to the prior session data received from the IMD (e.g. ¶ 103 – 105); receive, via the GUI, user input; and responsive to receiving the user input, control the GUI to manipulate at least a portion of the presented information (e.g. ¶ 115 – 117).
Regarding claim 5, Goetz discloses presenting the retrieved information comprises presenting a portion of the prior session data along a timescale (e.g. Figs. 11A, 11B).
Regarding claims 6, 18, and 19, Goetz discloses comparing a first portion of the prior session data for a first selected duration along the timescale to a second portion of the prior session data for the first selected duration (e.g. Figs. 11A, 11B).
Regarding claim 7¸Goetz discloses the first portion comprises local field potential frequency information and the second portion comprises patient selected events (e.g. Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, Goetz discloses the processing circuitry is configured to: manipulate the retrieved information comprises performing statistical analysis on the retrieved information, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate selected statistical values and cause the GUI to present the calculated statistical values on the display screen (e.g. ¶ 16).
Regarding claim 13, Goetz discloses the display (e.g. 22) configured to present the GUI (e.g. Figs. 1 and 13)
Regarding claim 14, Goetz discloses an electrical stimulation device (e.g. ¶ 43 – 44).
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.
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) 8, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Goetz discloses the claimed invention except of for the frequency sub-band and presenting the operational settings. Frequency bands having frequency sub-bands and displaying operational settings is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Goetz with what is known in the art, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the physician to use the device in an effective and efficient way.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Goetz discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly reciting zooming, scrolling, etc. on the display. These are well known when using graphical user interfaces. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the graphical user interface as taught by Goetz with zooming, scrolling, etc. as is well known, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of presenting the data in a more convenient manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 16, and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 on 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 3792
Prosecution Insights