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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiach (WO 2014096971 A2) in view of Pepin et al. (US 10,370,594 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Mashiach discloses a method of using a wireless communication system (figures 1-5) through a tissue of a patient, the method comprising steps of: providing a first device (110) including a first device data receiver, a first device electrode, and a stimulator; receiving a signal through the first device data receiver, generating an electrical stimulation; coupling the electrical stimulation to the tissue of the patient (through electrodes 158a and 158b) (paragraphs [028], [034], [046] and [050]) Mashiach does not explicitly disclose generating a bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse; coupling the bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse to the tissue of the patient. However, Pepin et al. (figure 1) disclose a device (102) including a first device data receiver, receiving a signal through the first device data receiver, generating a bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse; and coupling the bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse to the tissue of the patient (through electrode 104 and 106) (column 4, line 24 – column 7, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teaching of generating a bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse; coupling the bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse to the tissue of the patient of Pepin et al. to the method of Mashiach to reduce power consumption and maintain high system reliability.
Regarding claim 13, Mashiach and Pepin et al. disclose the method of claim 12 above. In addition, Pepin et al. disclose wherein the signal is a configuration signal (column 6, line 41- column 7 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teaching of configuration signal of Pepin et al. to the method of Mashiach for varying the stimulus parameters depending on the stimulation application.
Regarding claim 14, Mashiach and Pepin et al. disclose the method of claim 13 above. In addition, Pepin et al. disclose wherein the generated bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse is designated one of a pulse-width and a pulse-frequency from the configuration signal (column 6, line 41- column 7 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teaching of the generated bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse is designated one of a pulse-width and a pulse-frequency from the configuration signal of Pepin et al. to the method of Mashiach for varying the stimulus parameters depending on the stimulation application.
Regarding claim 15, Mashiach and Pepin et al. disclose the method of claim 10 above. In addition, Pepin et al. disclose wherein the generated bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse is coupled to the tissue of the patient via a plurality of first device electrodes (104 and 106) to enable bi-phasic electrical stimulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the teaching of coupling the generated bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse to the tissue of the patient via a plurality of first device electrodes to enable bi-phasic electrical stimulation of Pepin et al. to the method of Mashiach for providing bi-phasic electrical stimulation to the tissue of the patient.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiach (WO 2014096971 A2) in view of Pepin et al. (US 10,370,594 B2) and further in view of Perryman et al. (US 8,849,412 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Mashiach and Pepin et al. disclose the method of claim 10 above. Mashiach and Pepin et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the first data receiver includes a passive envelope detector to detect data. However, Perryman et al. disclose a data receiver includes a passive envelope detector to detect data (column 41, lines 10-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the passive envelope detector of Perryman et al. to the first data receiver of Mashiach and Pepin et al. for low power consumption, low cost and simplicity.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiach (WO 2014096971 A2) in view of Pepin et al. (US 10,370,594 B2) and further in view of Marnfeldt et al. (US 10,525,253 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Mashiach and Pepin et al. disclose the method of claim 10 above. Mashiach and Pepin et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the stimulator includes a timer which generates the bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse. However, Marnfeldt et al. disclose a timer which generates bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse (column 6, lines 33-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the timer of Marnfeldt et al. to the method of Mashiach and Pepin et al. for pulse formation to occur periodically with a desire frequency.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 10 and 12 of the pending application are being obvious over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997.
Regarding claim 10 of the pending application, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 discloses a wireless communication system which all components that obviously perform all the steps of a method of using a wireless communication system through a tissue of a patient, the method comprising steps of: providing a first device including a first device data receiver, a first device electrode, and a stimulator; receiving a signal through the first device data receiver; generating a bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse; coupling the bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse to the tissue of the patient.
Regarding claim 12 of the pending application, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 discloses wherein the stimulator includes a timer which generates the bi-phasic electrical stimulation pulse.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 in view of Trimberger (US 10,325,646 B1).
Regarding claim 1 of the pending application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses a wireless communication system, comprising: a first device including a first device data transmitter, a first device data receiver, an energy harvester; a second device including a second device data receiver, a second device data transmitter, and a power transmitter, the second device is configured to communicate via Bi-Phasic Quasi- Static Brain Communication with the first device; wherein a wireless communication from the first device to the second device includes an electrical uplink channel and the wireless communication from the second device to the first device includes an electrical downlink channel. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 does not disclose the first device including a ring-oscillator based physical unclonable function circuit and wherein the ring-oscillator based physical unclonable function circuit designates a time slot for the first device data transmitter. However, Trimberger discloses a ring-oscillator based physical unclonable function circuit (column 1, lines 11-29) and wherein the ring-oscillator based physical unclonable function circuit designates a time slot (with a timer) (column 4, lines 53-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the ring-oscillator based physical unclonable function circuit and wherein the ring-oscillator based physical unclonable function circuit designates a time slot to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 for providing timing for the first device data transmitter.
Regarding claim 2 of the pending application, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses wherein the electrical downlink channel utilizes a transfer energy ranging from greater than zero microwatts up to about three microwatts.
Regarding claim 3 of the pending application, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses wherein the uplink channel may be configured to transmit data at 6kbps to 10Mbps.
Regarding claim 4 of the pending application, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses a stimulator coupled to the first device data transmitter, the stimulator is configured to provide a compressive sensing capability.
Regarding claim 5 of the pending application, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses a DC blocking cap coupled to the first device data transmitter.
Regarding claim 6 of the pending application, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses wherein the first device includes a plurality of first device electrodes, and the first device utilizes dipole coupling to create an electric field between the first device electrodes.
Regarding claim 7 of the pending application, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses a charge pump that is coupled to the first device and is configured to militate against leakage of power on the first device.
Regarding claim 8 of the pending application, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 encompasses wherein the communication distance between the first device and the second device may include a channel length up to about fifty-five millimeters.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 in view of Trimberger (US 10,325,646 B1) and further in view of Perryman et al. (US 8,849,412 B2).
Regarding claim 9 of the pending application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 and Trimberger disclose the method of claim 1 above. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 and Trimberger do not disclose wherein the first data receiver includes a passive envelope detector to detect data. However, Perryman et al. disclose a data receiver includes a passive envelope detector to detect data (column 41, lines 10-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the passive envelope detector of Perryman et al. to the first data receiver of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 and Trimberger for low power consumption, low cost and simplicity.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 in view of Perryman et al. (US 8,849,412 B2).
Regarding claim 11 of the pending application, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 and Trimberger disclose the method of claim 10 above. Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 does not disclose wherein the first data receiver includes a passive envelope detector to detect data. However, Perryman et al. disclose a data receiver includes a passive envelope detector to detect data (column 41, lines 10-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the passive envelope detector of Perryman et al. to the first data receiver of claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,997 for low power consumption, low cost and simplicity.
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guardiani et al. (US 9,504,842 B2) disclose an electronic medical system comprises an external RF power transmitter configured to emit a first power signal via an electromagnetic coupling, said RF power transmitter being configured to emit said first energy signal with a power no greater than 1 W; an implantable medical device comprising: at least one receiver antenna configured to receive said first energy signal via an electromagnetic coupling; an RF power receiver module configured to extract a second energy signal having a power of at least 1 milliwatts and to be powered by said second energy signal; a power actuator module, operatively connected to the RF power receiver module, powered by said second energy signal; the power actuator module is configured to deliver a medical treatment to at least a target tissue of a patient on the basis of a control signal generated by the RF power receiver module.
Hornung et al. (US 2018/0131241 A1) teach an energy transmission device for the wireless transmission of energy to an active implant, comprising: a transmitter coil adapted for electrical connection to an energy source, and an implantable receiver coil adapted for inductive coupling to the transmitter coil for wireless energy transmission, wherein an implantable primary coil is electrically connected to a modulator, the modulator modulating an AC voltage supplied to the implantable primary coil based on a data signal so that data transmission from the implantable primary coil to an extracorporeal secondary coil is performed, the frequency of the data transmission being different from the frequency at which the energy is transmitted from the transmitter coil to the receiver coil, and wherein information regarding the energy control of the energy to be transmitted from the transmitter coil is transmitted from the primary coil to the secondary coil by a pulse width modulated signal, other information not regarding the energy control is transmitted by means of a frequency modulation of the carrier frequency of the pulse width modulated signal or by a modulation of the frequency at which the pulses of the pulse width modulated signal are transmitted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOCHIEN B VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7902. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-06:00PM M-F.
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUOCHIEN B VUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights