CTNF 18/749,417 CTNF 101525 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-09 AIA Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows: 02-10 AIA The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/544,656, 62/693,543, 16/100,904, and 62/803,330 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. These prior-filed applications do not provide support for the method wherein the external device stores information indicative of a plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient comprising a line or a volume in a multi-dimensional space of frequency, pulse width, and amplitude, wherein each stimulation mode corresponds to a subset of the stimulation parameters sets and based on selection of one of the stimulation modes, programming the stimulator device using the GUI with a stimulation parameter set within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameter sets ; therefore the instant application is given the filing date of July 2, 2019 for continuation application 16/460,655 . Drawings 06-24-01 AIA Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 - inconsistent terminology, missing "a" or "the" preceding "subset"; examiner interprets claim 2 herein with "the" preceding "subset" which is consistent with claim 3 . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11338127 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader than the patent claims in at least one aspect . Regarding claim 1, the following table compares application claim 1 to patent claim 14. Instant Application 18/749417 US Patent 11338127 Claim 1: A method for programming a patient’s stimulator device, the method comprising: Claim 14: A method for programming a patient's stimulator device, the method comprising: providing a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on an external device that allows the patient to select from a plurality of displayed stimulation modes to program stimulation provided by one or more electrodes of the stimulator device, providing a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on an external device that allows the patient to select from a plurality of displayed stimulation modes to program stimulation provided by one or more electrodes of the stimulator device; wherein the external device stores information indicative of a plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient comprising a line or a volume in a multi-dimensional space of frequency, pulse width, and amplitude, wherein each stimulation mode corresponds to a subset of the stimulation parameters sets; and storing information indicative of a plurality of subsets of stimulation parameters derived for the patient, wherein each stimulation mode corresponds to one of the subsets of stimulation parameters; based on selection of one of the stimulation modes, programming the stimulator device using the GUI with a stimulation parameter set within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameter sets. based on selection of one of the stimulation modes, limiting programming the stimulator device to stimulation parameters that are within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameters. Patent claim 14 further limits and/or includes additional elements which encompass application claim 1. Therefore, patent claim 14 anticipates application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman , cited above, where applicant has been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Claims 19 & 20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12017061 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader than the patent claims in at least one aspect. Regarding claim 19, the following table compares application claim 19 to patent claim 18. Instant Application 18/749417 US Patent 12017061 Claim 19: A system, comprising: Claim 18: A system, comprising: a stimulator device configured for implantation in a patient comprising a plurality of electrodes; and a stimulator device configured for implantation in a patient comprising a plurality of electrodes; and at least one external device configured to at least one external device configured to provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that allows the patient to select from a plurality of displayed stimulation modes to program stimulation provided by one or more electrodes of the stimulator device, provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on the external device to allow the patient to select from the plurality of stimulation modes , wherein selection of one of the stimulation modes limits programming the stimulator device to stimulation parameters that are within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameters. store information indicative of a plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient comprising a line or a volume in a multi-dimensional space of frequency, pulse width, and amplitude, wherein each stimulation mode corresponds to a subset of the stimulation parameters sets; and provide at the external device information indicative of a plurality of subsets of stimulation parameters previously determined for the patient , wherein the stimulation parameters in the subsets provide sub-perception stimulation for the patient, wherein each subset corresponds with one of a plurality of stimulation modes ; and based on selection of one of the stimulation modes, program the stimulator device using the GUI with a stimulation parameter set within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameter sets. provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on the external device to allow the patient to select from the plurality of stimulation modes, wherein selection of one of the stimulation modes limits programming the stimulator device to stimulation parameters that are within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameters. Patent claim 18 further limits and/or includes additional elements which encompass application claim 19. Therefore, patent claim 18 anticipates application claim 19. Following the rationale in In re Goodman , cited above, where applicant has been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Regarding claim 20, the following table compares application claim 20 to patent claim 19. Instant Application 18/749417 US Patent 12017061 Claim 20: Claim 19: At least one non-transitory computer readable medium configured for operation in at least one external device configured to program a stimulator device implantable in a patient with stimulation to be provided at one or more of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the at least one medium includes instructions that, when executed on the at least one external device, are configured to: At least one non-transitory computer readable medium configured for operation in at least one external device configured to program a stimulator device implantable in a patient with stimulation to be provided at one or more of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the at least one medium includes instructions that, when executed on the at least one external device, are configured to: provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that allows the patient to select from a plurality of displayed stimulation modes to program stimulation provided by one or more electrodes of the stimulator device, provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on the external device to allow the patient to select from the plurality of stimulation modes, wherein selection of one of the stimulation modes limits programming the stimulator device to stimulation parameters that are within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameters. store information indicative of a plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient comprising a line or a volume in a multi-dimensional space of frequency, pulse width, and amplitude, wherein each stimulation mode corresponds to a subset of the stimulation parameters sets; and provide at the external device information indicative of a plurality of subsets of stimulation parameters previously determined for the patient, wherein the stimulation parameters in the subsets provide sub-perception stimulation for the patient, wherein each subset corresponds with one of a plurality of stimulation modes; and based on selection of one of the stimulation modes, program the stimulator device using the GUI with a stimulation parameter set within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameter sets. provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) on the external device to allow the patient to select from the plurality of stimulation modes, wherein selection of one of the stimulation modes limits programming the stimulator device to stimulation parameters that are within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameters. Patent claim 19 further limits and/or includes additional elements which encompass application claim 20. Therefore, patent claim 19 anticipates application claim 20. Following the rationale in In re Goodman , cited above, where applicant has been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wechter et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2017/0106197 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 19, 20, Wechter teaches a system, comprising: a stimulator device configured for implantation (422, Fig. 4) in a patient comprising a plurality of electrodes (406, Fig. 4 & 5) [0080-0081]; and at least one external device (602, Fig. 6) [0085] configured to provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (610) that allows the patient to select from a plurality of displayed stimulation modes to program stimulation provided by one or more electrodes of the stimulator device ([0089], [0098-0102], Fig. 6; waveform composer (320) includes building block editor, pulse editor, burst editor, train editor, and sequence editor). store information indicative of a plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient comprising a line or a volume in a multi-dimensional space of frequency, pulse width, and amplitude, wherein each stimulation mode corresponds to a subset of the stimulation parameters sets ([0083], [0087], Fig. 6; implantable stimulator (404, Fig. 5) includes sensing circuit (530) and storage device (532) for storing sensed values of stimulation parameters; telemetry circuit (534) provides wireless communication between stimulator (404) and external system (402); external storage device (618) stores plurality of waveform building blocks or adjustable parameter sets); and based on selection of one of the stimulation modes, program the stimulator device using the GUI ([0081]; “In some embodiments, external 402 includes a programming device intended for the user to initialize and adjust settings for implantable stimulator 404 and a remote control device intended for use by the patient.”) with a stimulation parameter set within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameter sets ([0098-00102], Fig. 8; “The pulse composition area allows the user to select a pulse editing mode from a plurality of pulse editing modes, such as by displaying a pull down menu listing the plurality of pulse editing modes as illustrated. Examples of the pulse editing modes include, but are not limited to, a guided mode, a free form mode, and a draw mode.”) Regarding claim 2, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein subset of the stimulation parameter sets of the selected stimulation mode are configured to provide sub-perception stimulation for the patient ([0137-0139], [0124], Fig. 33); “…where the Library includes various waveform building blocks stored in external storage device 618. The pull-down menu provides for submenu access to import of individual waveform building blocks including pulses, bursts, trains, and sequences, submenu access to import of specialized program sequences such as Sub-Perception, Co-ordinated Reset, and Bursting.” Regarding claim 4, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient are configured to provide sub-perception stimulation for the patient ([0138-0139], [0124], Fig. 33); Regarding claim 7, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches a method further comprising providing on the GUI one or more options to allow the patient to program the stimulator device with the programmed stimulation parameter set ([0103], Fig. 14); “The control area allows the user to select a waveform building block and applies various pulse parameter to the selected waveform building block. The pulse parameters include pulse amplitude, pulse width, and pulse frequency. The control area allows the user to select advanced control including advanced editing options listed in a pull down menu…” Regarding claim 8, Wechter teaches the method of claim 7, and further teaches a method wherein the one or more options limit programming the programmed stimulation parameter set to within the corresponding subset of stimulation parameter sets [0088]; “In various embodiment, programming control circuit 616 checks values of the plurality of stimulation parameters against safety rules to limit these values within constraints of the safety rules. In one embodiment, the safety rules are heuristic rules.” Regarding claim 9, Wechter teaches the method of claim 8, and further teaches a method wherein at least one of the one or more options allows the patient to simultaneously adjust at least two of a frequency, pulse width, and amplitude of the programmed stimulation parameter set ([0140-0144], Fig. 34-38); external device comprising at least stimulation adjuster (3182, Fig. 31) and advanced adjustment module (3186) allows simultaneous adjustment of amplitude, pulse width, and frequency. Regarding claim 10, Wechter teaches the method of claim 9, and further teaches a method wherein the at least one of the one or more options allows the patient to simultaneously adjust the frequency, pulse width, and amplitude of the programmed stimulation parameter set ([0140-0144], Fig. 34-38). Regarding claim 12, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches a method wherein the external device comprises a patient external controller ([0007-0009], [0112]); remote device or patient external controller is configured for use with external programming device or clinician programmer. Regarding claim 13, Wechter teaches the method of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the plurality of stimulation parameters sets derived for the patient are determined on a clinician programmer, and further comprising transmitting the plurality of stimulation parameters sets to the patient external controller ([0022], [0112]); external programming device or clinician programmer performs waveform composition which encompasses the modes or subsets of stimulation parameters; clinician programmer is communicatively coupled to the patient external controller. Regarding claim 14, Wechter teaches the method of claim 12, and further teaches a method wherein the subsets of the stimulation parameters sets are determined on a clinician programmer, and further comprising transmitting the subsets to the patient external controller ([0022], [0112]). Regarding claim 15, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the external device comprises a clinician programmer [0112]. Regarding claim 16, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, and teaches a method further comprising, providing on the GUI an option that allows the stimulator device or the external device to automatically detect when at least one of the stimulation modes should be entered, wherein detection of one of the stimulation modes programs the stimulator device with the programmed stimulation parameter set within the corresponding subset ([0127], [0099], Fig. 6); “In response to a selection of automatic charge balancing by the user, pulse editor 842 can automatically modify the pulse for charge balancing.” Regarding claim 17, Wechter teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches a method wherein the GUI permits the patient to select the at least one stimulation mode to be detected ([0127], Fig. 19); waveform composition is performed on remote device and stored in remote storage device; “Pulse Charge Options” is a selectable mode from the remote device or patient external controller. Regarding claim 18, Wechter teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches a method wherein the external device is configured to automatically detect when the at least one of the stimulation modes is to be entered by receiving information from another device ([0127], [0099], [0111-0112]); “In various embodiments, external programming device 1870 and remote device 1872 are communicatively coupled to each other via a wired or wireless communication link. This allows, for example, stimulation waveforms or waveform building blocks to be composed in a device other than the programming device that directly transmits the stimulation parameters to the stimulation device.”; remote device or patient external controller can be configured to provide limited functionality thereby moving waveform composition and charge balance detection from remote device to external programming device while enabling mode selection on remote device to control charge balance mode . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wechter et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2017/0106197 A1) , in view of Heldman et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2018/0361153 A1) . Regarding claim 5, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein at least one of the stimulation modes is indicative of a posture or activity of the patient. However, Heldman teaches a method wherein at least one of the stimulation modes is indicative of a posture or activity of the patient [0160]; “This second level of parameters or settings preferably corresponds to a mode of therapy or treatment that addresses the subject's needs as determined based on the identified or determined activity and symptoms or side effects, and the measured and quantified motor symptom data, as well as other data, goals, or objectives. In other words, if the system determines that, for example, the subject is experiencing a very strong tremor while driving, such determination being made as a result of the identification of the subject's activity and symptoms as well as measurement of the subject's movement and quantifying the severity of the tremor, the processor and algorithm would provide a second level of parameters or settings 100 that would reduce or minimize the tremor the subject is experiencing.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wechter with a method wherein at least one of the stimulation modes is indicative of a posture or activity of the patient as taught by Heldman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment of movement disorders by automatically and intelligently tuning a therapy device based on patient data (Heldman, [0015]). Regarding claim 6, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein at least one of the stimulation modes is indicative of a power mode for the stimulator device. However, Heldman teaches a method wherein at least one of the stimulation modes or settings is indicative of a power mode for the stimulator device [0135]; tuning algorithm can be configured to minimize current consumption to maximize battery life. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wechter with the method wherein at least one of the stimulation settings is indicative of a power mode for the stimulator device as taught by Heldman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to ensure that the stimulator device has sufficient power to provide treatment by maximizing battery life (Heldman, [0031]). Regarding claim 11, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose deriving the plurality of stimulation parameter sets for the patient using measurements taken from the patient in response to providing stimulation to the patient during a testing procedure. However, Heldman teaches a method comprising deriving the plurality of stimulation parameter sets for the patient using measurements taken from the patient in response to providing stimulation to the patient during a testing procedure [0026]. “In order to determine what a desired or optimal level of therapy parameters might be, the subject's symptoms or side effects must first be measured and quantified. The measurement and quantification preferably take place while the subject is performing at least one movement disorder test as instructed. Once the initial measurement and quantification has been obtained, the system and/or, in some embodiments a clinician, physician or technician, programs a second level of therapy parameters into the subject's therapy device, and the subject repeats the movement disorder test(s) while the symptoms or side effects are again measured and quantified. This process is repeated until the desired result(s), goals or constraints are achieved.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wechter with the method comprising deriving the plurality of stimulation parameter sets for the patient using measurements taken from the patient in response to providing stimulation to the patient during a testing procedure as taught by Heldman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to determine an optimal level of therapy by iteratively testing therapy parameters while integrating patient feedback (Heldman, [0026]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wechter et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2017/0106197 A1) , in view of Marnfeldt et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2018/0140830 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Wechter teaches the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the subset of stimulation parameter sets of the selected stimulation mode are configured to provide supra-perception stimulation for the patient. However, Marnfeldt teaches a method wherein the subset of stimulation parameter sets of the selected stimulation mode are configured to provide supra-perception stimulation for the patient ([0023], [0059]); “The controller may program the electrostimulator with the plurality of modulation parameters based on the received modulation magnitude and the plurality of gain functions, and control the electrostimulator to elicit the electrostimulation therapy including a sub-perception stimulation according to the first modulation magnitude and a supra-perception stimulation according to the second modulation magnitude.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wechter with the method wherein the subset of stimulation parameter sets of the selected stimulation mode are configured to provide supra-perception stimulation for the patient as taught by Marnfeldt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve therapeutic and device efficiency by concurrently applying settings that control multiple modulation parameters (Marnfeldt, [0042]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWANE COLLARD whose telephone number is (571)272-6553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-6 pm. 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, Ben Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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. /DWANE COLLARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 2 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 3 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 4 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 5 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 6 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 7 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 8 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 9 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 10 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 11 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 12 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 13 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 14 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 15 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 16 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 17 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 18 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 19 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 20 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 21 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 22 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 23 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 24 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 25 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 26 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/749,417 Page 27 Art Unit: 3792
Prosecution Insights