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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2119050.9, filed on 12/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed 09/27/2024 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites the phrase, “There is disclosed…”, which is considered implied phraseology and should be avoided. Furthermore, the abstract amounts to 42 words and is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Linder (US 20010007056 A1 – hereinafter Linder).
Re. claim 1, Linder teaches a circuit arrangement for delivering stimuli to a user (paragraph 0001 – “This invention relates generally to cardiac rhythm management systems …”; paragraph 0003 – “Cardiac rhythm management systems include, among other things, pacemakers, or pacers. Pacers deliver timed sequences of low energy electrical stimuli…”),
wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a circuit including a pair of current pumps including a first current pump and a second current pump (paragraph 0062 – “…first current source/sink circuit 255, second current source/sink circuit 275…”; figure 9),
and an inverting voltage mirror to provide an inverted signal to at least one of the first current pump and a second current pump to control its operation (paragraph 0062 – “…current mirror voltage at node 910…”; figure 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 2, Linder further teaches wherein the first current pump and the second current pump are located on the same side of a load (figure 9 shows the first current source/sink circuit 255 and second current source/sink circuit 275 are longitudinally aside of a load).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 3, Linder further teaches wherein the circuit is connected to a power source (paragraph 0062 – “…positive power supply V.sub.cc at node 925”).
Re. claim 5, Linder further teaches wherein the inverting voltage mirror is configured to ensure zero current flow when in its rest state (since current is mirrored at the mirror at node 910, stated in paragraph 0062 – “An input reference current 900 is provided to diode-connected transistor 905, which produces a current mirror voltage at node 910 that is received by current mirror transistors 915A-D”, no current provided to the diode connected transistor 905 would be mirrored by the mirror at node 910).
Re. claim 7, Linder further teaches wherein the circuit is configured to create a potential difference across the load required for supplying a predefined stimulus to the user (paragraph 0062 – “An input reference current 900 is provided to diode-connected transistor 905, which produces a current mirror voltage at node 910…”; paragraphs 0038-0039).
Re. claim 8, Linder further teaches wherein the circuit arrangement is configured to deliver at least one of a transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and bipolar pulse stimulation (paragraph 0012 – “Another embodiment provides bidirectional test currents to account for polarity effects on the defibrillation lead impedance measurement”).
Re. claim 10, Linder further teaches wherein the circuit includes a microprocessor configured to determine the parameters of stimulation (figure 2, control 235; paragraph 0027 – “…the present technique allows a defibrillation countershock therapy to be dynamically adjusted, based at least partially on the measured values of defibrillation lead impedance. Furthermore, the present system uses test stimuli energies (e.g., amplitude and pulse width) …”; paragraph 0058).
Re. claim 11, Linder further teaches wherein the circuit includes components for measurement of current supplied to the electrodes (impedance measurement, paragraph 0015 – “FIG. 2 is a generalized schematic/block diagram illustrating a first example of portions of the cardiac rhythm management system for measuring defibrillation lead impedance”).
Re. claim 12, Linder further teaches wherein the circuit includes components for measurement of voltages at the electrodes (paragraph 0035 – “First diode 250 includes a cathode coupled to first defibrillation electrode 120A and an anode coupled at node 252 to lead impedance stimulation and measurement circuits, such as first current source and/or sink circuit 255 and first voltage measurement circuit 260”).
Re. claim 14, Linder teaches the method for using the circuit arrangement of claim 1 provide stimuli to a user via electrodes in electrical contact with the user (paragraph 0030 – “…cardiac rhythm management system 100 includes a cardiac rhythm management device 105 coupled to heart 110 via one or more endocardial or epicardial leadwires, such a pacing leadwire or a defibrillation leadwire 115. Defibrillation leadwire 115 includes one or more defibrillation electrodes, such as for delivering defibrillation countershock ("shock") therapy via first defibrillation electrode 120A and/or second defibrillation electrode 120B”).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder (US 20010007056 A1 – hereinafter Linder) in view of Greatbatch (US 20060122655 A1 – hereinafter Greatbatch).
Re. claim 4, Linder teaches the power source as stated above in claim 3, but does not explicitly teach wherein the power source further includes at least one of a battery and a voltage boost circuit.
Greatbatch teaches a power source for implantable medical devices (paragraph 0003 – “The present invention relates to improvements in the performance of implantable defibrillators, ICDs (Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators) and other battery-powered implantable medical devices designed to provide high-energy electrical stimulation of body tissue for therapeutic purposes”), and further teaches its circuit comprising a battery power source (figure 1, high-energy battery power source 2), and a voltage boost circuit (figure 1, conventional charge control circuit 6 with voltage boost capability).
PNG
media_image3.png
554
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power source of Linder, to incorporate the voltage boost circuit and battery as taught by Greatbatch, since such modification would predictably result in providing power and increased voltage to the circuit.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder (US 20010007056 A1 – hereinafter Linder).
Re. claim 6, Linder is considered to recite each and every claimed element of the present invention including the first and second current pumps, and inverting voltage mirror as stated above in claim 1. However, despite the recitation of the essential working elements as claimed, a difference is found with respect to the layout and arrangement of elements within the circuit, specifically wherein the inverting voltage mirror is located at the other side of the load opposite to the first current pump and the second current pump. The differences in the layout and arrangement of the essential working elements are not considered to comprise a critical advantage to the layout of elements disclosed by Linder, and thus is not considered to constitute a patentable difference. Since Linder demonstrates the capability of housing each of the working elements to fit within the circuit, then the architecture in which the elements are arranged is not deemed critical. This difference, wherein the only difference being the arrangement and location of essential working elements, has been held by the reviewing courts as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it is motivated by choice in design and routine skill (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). A skilled designer is considered to recognize the claimed arrangement of elements as one of many possibilities for the layout of elements within the limited space created by the circuit. The location of each element is further motivated by choice in design dictated by the limited available space.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder (US 20010007056 A1 – hereinafter Linder) in view of Fahey (US 20100004715 A1 – hereinafter Fahey).
Re. claim 9, Linder teaches the claimed invention as stated above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the circuit, when in operation, delivers electric stimuli to the user and receives signals from skin of the user, simultaneously.
Fahey teaches a similar circuit arrangement for delivering electric stimuli to a patient (paragraph 0087 – “The control unit may also include components such as a signal generator, memory, processor, and power supply. The primary operation of the control unit may be provided by a microprocessor, field programmable gate array (FPGA), application specific integrated circuit…”), and further teaches the known technique of the circuit, when in operation, delivers electric stimuli to the user and receives signals from skin of the user, simultaneously (paragraph 0017 – “In one embodiment of the system, the stimulating parameters can be optimized as follows: An electrical stimulus signal, described by a default set of stimulation parameters, may be delivered to the stimulating electrodes. The stimulating electrodes may be utilized to couple the generated stimulus to underlying muscles and/or nerves, causing the muscle(s) to contract. In such a manner, the stimulating electrodes may be in electrical contact with underlying muscle and/or nervous tissue. Simultaneously, the sensing components may detect signals that are representative of the electrical properties of the tendon …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Linder, to incorporate the simultaneous stimulation and sensing functions as taught by Fahey, since such would predictably result in monitoring stimulation effects in real time.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder (US 20010007056 A1 – hereinafter Linder) in view of Weerakoon (US 20190083796 A1 – hereinafter Weerakoon).
Re. claim 13, Linder teaches the circuit arrangement as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein one or more components of the circuit are arranged on an integrated circuit microchip.
Weerakoon teaches a similar circuit arrangement for delivering stimuli to a patient (abstract – “An implantable pulse generator (IPG) is disclosed having an improved ability to steer anodic and cathodic currents between the IPG's electrodes”), and further teaches wherein one or more components of a circuit are arranged on an integrated circuit microchip (figure 2B includes the Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) 60 which includes several components of a circuit including electrode nodes 61a, controller 80, stimulation circuitry 70, and telemetry 64; paragraphs 0008-0009).
PNG
media_image4.png
414
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Linder, specifically the circuit components, to incorporate the ASIC arrangement as taught by Weerakoon, since such would predictably result in enabling combined circuit miniaturization for efficiently compact electronic circuit sizes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh-Khoa N. Dinh whose telephone number is (571)272-7041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-4:00pm EST.
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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ANH-KHOA N DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796