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 § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 9-11 recite the phrase “estimating the position of the implantable lead by determining one or more stimulation electrodes that generate a maximal measured ECAP collision of the ECAPs evoked by the first stimulation and the ECAPs evoked by the second stimulation.” This phrase is unclear, as line 5 appears to be stimulating using “the plurality of stimulation electrodes” (which is all of the stimulation electrodes). It is thus unclear how one ore more stimulation electrodes that generate the maximal measured ECAP collision can be determined if all of the stimulation is only applied by all of the stimulation electrodes. Similar issues exist in independent claims 10 and 20.
Claim 1, line 8 recites the phrase “ECAPs evoked by a second stimulation applied to a peripheral nerve.” It is unclear if this second stimulation is also applied by the implantable lead or if it is applied by another source. Similar issues exist in claim 10 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Balzer et al. Localization of cervical and cervicomedullary stimulation leads for pain treatment using median nerve somatosensory evoked potential collision testing. J Neurosurg. 2011 Jan;114(1):200-5. doi: 10.3171/2010.5.JNS091640. Epub 2010 May 28. PMID: 20509731. Discloses the use of collision SSEP data to determine that an electrode array is placed in the midline.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda K Hulbert whose telephone number is (571)270-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/Amanda K Hulbert/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights