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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment which was received by the office on June 24, 2026. Claims 1-4,6-14, 16-21 are currently pending and under examination.
Drawings
In view of the response filed on 6/24/2026 amending the specification to match the reference numerals in the drawings the objections made against the drawings in the office 3/24/2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on 6/24/2026 amending claims 1 and 11 to recite “first time interval” the 112(b) rejections made against claims 6 and 16 in the office action of 3/24/2026 have been withdrawn.
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 1-4,6-14, 16-21 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. Claims 1,11 and 21 have been amended to recite “apply the second atrial systolic event threshold to the cardiac mechanical signal during second windows of the plurality of ventricular cycles and accumulate atrial event evidence from the cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second windows comprising: determining if the motion signal crosses the first atrial systolic event threshold during a ventricular cycle of the plurality of ventricular cycles; and waiting for a next ventricular cycle of the plurality of ventricular cycles without accumulating atrial event evidence from the motion signal sensed during the ventricular cycle in response to the motion signal crossing the first atrial systolic event threshold during the ventricular cycle”, which recite “accumulate atrial event evidence from the cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second windows” and then recite “determining if the motion signal crosses the first atrial systolic event threshold during a ventricular cycle of the plurality of ventricular cycles” it is unclear whether the “motion signal” is referring back to the “cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second windows” or if it is a different signal, clarification is required. Additionally, the claims recite “apply the second atrial systolic event threshold to the cardiac mechanical signal during second windows of the plurality of ventricular cycles…. accumulate atrial event evidence from the cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second windows” and recite that the atrial event evidence from the cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second window is determined based on the motion signal crosses “the first atrial systolic event threshold during a ventricular cycle of the plurality of ventricular cycles”, which is confusing on exactly what systolic event threshold is being used during the second windows of the plurality of ventricular cycles since the claims initially recite that the second atrial systolic event threshold is applied to the cardiac mechanical signal during second windows of the plurality of ventricular cycles and that atrial event evidence is accumulated from the cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second windows but then recite that the accumulation of atrial event evidence from the cardiac mechanical signal sensed during the second windows is determined based on the motion signal crossing the first atrial systolic event threshold. Is it the first atrial systolic event threshold or the second atrial systolic event threshold that is used during the second windows? Clarification is required. Claims 2-4,6-10, 12-14, 16-20 directly or indirectly depend from claims 1 and 11 and are also rejected to for the reasons stated above regarding claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
V. Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection made against claims 1-9,11-19 and 21 within the office action of 3/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments reciting adjusting a pacing therapy based on the arrythmia criteria being met and delivering the adjusted pacing therapy. The 101 rejection made against claims 1-9,11-19 and 21 within the office action of 3/24/2026 has been withdrawn.
VI. Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12-13, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection using Sheldon made against claims 1-2,7-12 and 17-21 within the office action of 3/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments reciting language regarding motion signal crossing and waiting for a next ventricular cycle. The 103 rejection using Sheldon made against claims 1-2,7-12 and 17-21 within the office action of 3/24/2026 has been withdrawn. It is noted that while language similar to claims 5 and 15 has been added to claims 1,11 and 21, the added language has been placed within a limitation that was not previously recited within claim 5 and 15.
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 JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM ET.
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.
/JG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights