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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: a semicolon should appear after “… wireless power above a threshold” and immediately before “selectively control …” (see, e.g., claim 1 line 17). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wired power transfer device” lacks proper antecedent basis since that term was only recited earlier in claim 13, and claim 15 does not depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US 2018/0001095 A1 to Bauhahn et al. (hereinafter “Bauhahn”).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 17, Bauhahn teaches a power transmitting device (external charging device 48) configured to wirelessly transfer power to a power receiving device (implantable medical device 16), the power transmitting device comprising:
a user interface (see e.g. Para. 124: “The user interface of the external charger is described below …”) including:
a control configured to receive user input (see e.g. buttons 90, 92, 94); and
a set of indicator lights configured to output information regarding communication status and wireless power transfer status (see unlabeled LCD on charging unit 50 in FIG. 1 and described in e.g. Para. 141; see e.g. FIGS. 31-36 showing various status icons that can be displayed; each pixel/dot of the LCD is an indicator light, and thus the LCD is a set of indicator lights);
circuitry configured to:
wirelessly communicate with the power receiving device (see e.g. Para. 135); and
wirelessly output power to the power receiving device (see e.g. Paras. 135-138);
processing circuitry operably coupled to a memory (implicitly disclosed due to the described functionalities of the device), the processing circuitry configured to:
determine one or more operational states, wherein the one or more operational states comprise at least one of: that the communication circuitry has not established a communication link with the power receiving device (see e.g. Para. 135: “Charging unit 50 then determines (step 112) if telemetry with implantable medical device 16 is successful. If telemetry is unsuccessful (step 114), an error message is generated such as a telemetry timeout (Reposition Antenna—Press Start Charge), system error (Antenna Too Hot) or external charging device 48 error due to INSR battery low or INSR battery depleted and external charging device displays the appropriate message.”); or that the power receiving device is receiving wireless power above a threshold (see e.g. Para. 136: “The surface temperature of antenna 52 is monitored as well as the charging current and battery voltage levels. An error message is generated and charging is suspended if measurements are not within limits”; also see e.g. Para. 153: “The INS charge status screen display is divided vertically into three lines of information: status line, recharge progress line and recharge efficiency line” and FIGS. 32-33)
selectively control, based on the operational state, the set of indicator lights to perform an action, wherein the action is selected from a group consisting of: controlling at least two indicator lights of the set of indicator lights to alternately flash; controlling the set of indicator lights to pulse by increasing a brightness of one or more indicator lights of the set of indicator lights followed by decreasing the brightness of the one or more indicator lights; controlling the one or more indicator lights of the set of indicator lights to output one of a first color or a second color; and controlling the set of indicator lights to output a spinning pattern (see e.g. Paras. 141-142 and FIGS. 31-36; at a minimum, every possible status display involves the display/output of at least one color on the pixel(s)/dot(s); also see e.g. Paras. 155 and 157 describing flashing display)
Regarding Claim 3, see e.g. buttons 90, 92 and 94; the LCD is backlit and is immediately adjacent the buttons, and thus it illuminates the buttons.
Regarding Claims 8 and 14-15, see e.g. FIGS. 32 and 34 showing charge levels for both the “INS” (implanted neurostimulator, i.e. the power receiving device) and the “INSR” (the recharger, i.e. the power transmitting device). As noted above, the display screen comprises many pixels/dots which each qualify as an indicator light, i.e. there are numerous “sets” of indicator lights.
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, see e.g. “INSR battery depleted” in e.g. Para. 135 and elsewhere throughout Bauhahn; also see the 0 battery INSR status in FIG. 31 (second to last row).
Regarding Claim 13, see cord 8.
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.
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 2, 4-6, 10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauhahn.
Regarding Claim 2, Bauhahn teaches determining whether the circuitry has established the communication link, as discussed above. Bauhahn fails to explicitly teach that this particular status results in controlling at least two indicator lights to alternately flash. However, this difference amounts to an unpatentable aesthetic design change/choice because it is merely aesthetic and does not fundamentally change the information which is being communicated. See MPEP § 2144.04(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Bauhahn to select any one or more known types of aesthetic presentations (e.g. flashing, blinking, patterns, colors, icons, etc.) of the output information since this would be a matter of aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, see e.g. “therapy on” and “therapy off” in FIGS. 31 and 34. Bauhahn fails to explicitly teach using different colors for the on and off states. However, this difference amounts to an unpatentable aesthetic design change/choice because it is merely aesthetic and does not fundamentally change the information which is being communicated. See MPEP § 2144.04(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Bauhahn to select any one or more known types of aesthetic presentations (e.g. flashing, blinking, patterns, colors, icons, etc.) of the output information since this would be a matter of aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claims 5-6, 10 and 19-20, see e.g. FIGS. 32-35 showing various power receiving statuses above and/or below multiple thresholds (e.g. FIG. 33 shows 9 distinct levels of recharge efficiency). Bauhahn fails to explicitly teach using a spinning pattern or first or second pulsing patterns for the indicator lights for the status of receiving power being above or below certain thresholds. However, this difference amounts to an unpatentable aesthetic design change/choice because it is merely aesthetic and does not fundamentally change the information which is being communicated. See MPEP § 2144.04(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Bauhahn to select any one or more known types of aesthetic presentations (e.g. flashing, blinking, patterns, colors, icons, etc.) of the output information since this would be a matter of aesthetic design choice.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauhahn in view of US 2010/0318159 A1 to Aghassian et al. (hereinafter “Aghassian”).
Regarding Claim 7, Bauhahn further teaches that the external charger can have optional audio feedback (see e.g. Para. 138). Presumably, this audio feedback can supplement any of the same types of statuses which are shown visually, though admittedly Bauhahn fails to explicitly teach that this audio feedback is provided in response to the received power level being within certain thresholds. However, it was extremely well known to combine auditory feedback with visual feedback in these kinds of systems. As one example, Aghassian teaches providing various forms of auditory feedback (in addition to or instead of) visual indicator lights for the same types of statuses seen in Bauhahn (see e.g. Para. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Bauhahn to provide audible alert(s) at one or more patterns, as seen in Aghassian, because it would help successfully alert a user even when they are not looking at the screen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauhahn as applied to claim 11 above, in view of US 2019/0334367 A1 to Scott et al. (hereinafter “Scott”).
Regarding Claim 12, Bauhahn teaches an external computing device (2) configured to wirelessly communicate with the power receiving device. Bauhahn fails to explicitly teach whether device (2) also communicates with external charger 50, and fails to teach whether device (2) has a touch screen user interface. Another reference, Scott, teaches a similar system in which external programmer (19) communicates with the external charger (20; see e.g. Para. 38: “FIG. 1 illustrates a communication link between charging device 20 and programmer 19. The communication link may represent a wired or wireless connection. In some examples, the communication link represents telemetry, as further described herein. Although not shown, any device of medical system 10 may be configured to communicate with any other device of medical system 10. For example, external programmer 19 may be configured to communicate with IMD 14A, IMD 14B, and/or charging device 20. In an example, charging device 20 may be configured to communicate with IMD 14A, IMD 14B, and programmer 19) and has a touch screen (see Para. 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Bauhahn to have all three devices communicate with each other since it would help ensure that each device maintains up to date information in sync with the other devices; furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Bauhahn to have the programmer have a touch screen since this was an incredibly well known and convenient type of user interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at (571)-272-4156. 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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights