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 .
References to the instant application’s as-filed specification has been made using the USPGPub. version of the specification in this Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "175" and "177" have both been used to designate “the proximal end of the dummy wires (see [0051] and [0061] of the specification).
. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0064] states “the lead with dummy contacts achieves a significantly lower the averaged 1 gram SAR,” but in Fig. 6 this is only true at a distance of 0 to approximately 17 mm. Beyond this distance, the Dummy condition has greater averaged 1 gram SAR until both drop to near zero at around 40 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 17, comma in line 1 after the limitation “claim 14” should be deleted in order to more clearly indicate that there are two components for the electrical stimulation system of claim 17, the lead of claim 14 and an implantable pulse generator. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-12 and 14-17 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.
The term “low” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The frequency signals passing through the conductive dummy wire is rendered indefinite by the use of the relative term “low.”
In claims 2-8 and 10-12, the antecedent basis for the limitation of “The lead of claim 1” and “the lead of claim 4” in line 1 is indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation of “The lead” of claim 1 and claim 4 is referring to “implantable lead” in the preamble of claim 1 or “lead body” in line 2 of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “The lead” of claim 1 and 4 has been interpreted as “The implantable lead.”
In claim 9, the antecedent basis for the limitation of “a lead as in claim 1” in line 1 is indefinite as it is unclear if “a lead as in claim 1” is referring to “implantable lead” in the preamble of claim 1 or “lead body” in line 2 of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “a lead as in claim 1” has been interpreted as “the implantable lead as in claim 1.”
In claim 9, it is unclear what elements are part of implantable therapy system and implantable pulse generator due to use of commas and conjunction, “and.” It is noted that claim 17 has similar parts recited for implantable pulse generator and arranged using indentation to make it more clear which parts are elements of and implantable pulse generator. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 has been interpreted as follows:
An implantable therapy system comprising the implantable lead as in claim 1wherein the implantable pulse generator comprising:
a pulse generator housing containing pulse generation circuitry
a header attached to the pulse generator housing, wherein the header containing a first set of connector contacts coupled to feedthroughs that connect to the pulse generation circuitry and the at least one dummy contact that couples, via a high pass filter or a switch, to the pulse generator housing.
In claim 11, the limitation “the at least one dummy contact is located distal of the at least one electrode on the lead” seems indefinite as it is unclear how the dummy contact can be located distal when claim 1 requires the dummy contact to be positioned proximal of the electrode. It seems that the specification discloses placement of dummy contact to be proximal, distal, and interspersed to be different embodiments (see [0015]-[0017]). As such, claim 12 has been interpreted according to [0016] of the specification.
In claim 12, the limitation “the at least one dummy contact is interspersed with the at least one electrode on the lead” seems indefinite as it is unclear how the dummy contact can be located interspersed with the at least one electrode when claim 1 requires the dummy contact to be positioned proximal of the electrode. It seems that the specification discloses placement of dummy contact to be proximal, distal, and interspersed to be different embodiments (see [0015]-[0017]). As such, claim 12 has been interpreted according to [0017] of the specification.
In claims 14-17, the antecedent basis for the limitation of “The lead of claim 13” and “The lead of claim 14” in line 1 is indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation of “The lead” of claim 13 or 14 is referring to “implantable lead” in the preamble of claim 13 or “lead body” in line 2 of claim 13. For the purpose of examination, “The lead” of claim 13 and 14 has been interpreted as “The implantable lead.”
In claim 17, the limitation of “An electrical stimulation system comprising the lead of claim 14, and an implantable pulse generator including” seems indefinite since it is unclear the elements following the term “including” is part of “electrical stimulation system”, “the lead of claim 14” or “an implantable pulse generator.” For the purpose of examination, the claim has been interpreted as the elements following the term “including” is part of “an implantable pulse generator.” Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation as --An electrical stimulation system comprising the implantable lead of claim 14 and an implantable pulse generator, wherein the implantable pulse generator including--.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 does not further limit claim 1. The limitation of "wherein the at least one dummy contact is located proximal of the at least one electrode on the lead" in claim 10 is essentially the same as the limitation of "at least one dummy contact disposed along the lead body, positioned proximal of the at least one electrode;" in claim 1. As such, claim 10 does not further limit its parent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boor et al. (US 2022/0233850 published on 7/28/2022, hereinafter Boor).
Regarding claim 1 & 10-12, Boor teaches an implantable lead (Fig 1-5) “biocompatible materials to allow the lead 110 to be implantable within the patient” in [0040]) comprising: a lead body (Fig 1 and “the lead 110 may include a lead body” in [0043]) having a proximal end of lead 110, proximate to the IPG 150, to its distal end “a proximal end of lead 110, proximate to the IPG 150, to its distal end.” in [0043]); at least one electrode disposed along the distal end of the lead body (112 in Fig 2 and “stimulation portions 200-208 for inclusion at the distal end of the lead 110… with multiple electrodes 112” in [0042]); at least one dummy contact disposed along the lead body (“The EMI antenna may be implemented in various manners, such as utilizing an inactive electrode (e.g., one of electrodes 332-335)” in [0048]), positioned proximal of (332 in Fig. 3), distal of (335 in Fig. 3), and interspersed with (333 and 334 in Fig. 3) the at least one electrode (see annotated Fig. 3 below); at least one therapy terminal contact disposed along the proximal end of the lead body 353 in Fig 3 and “Lead 330 of the illustrated embodiment includes lead body 331, preferably incarcerating a plurality of internal conductors coupled to lead connectors (not shown) to interface with lead connectors 353 of IPG 310. Lead 330 further includes electrodes 332-335, which are preferably coupled to the aforementioned internal conductors” in [0051]; at least one conductive wire (“stimulation wires in the lead 330” in [0058]) electrically coupling the at least one electrode to the at least one therapy terminal contact (112 in Fig 1 & 2 and “electrodes 112 are adapted to apply the pulses to the stimulation target of the patient” in [0043]); a dummy terminal contact (452 in Fig. 4, 548 in Fig. 5 (“FIG. 5 illustrates a circuit diagram of the feedback circuit of FIG. 4” [0062]) and “inactive electrode E0 is coupled to a comparator circuit 548” in [0077]); and at least one conductive dummy wire (“inactive electrodes E0 may be utilized as the EMI antenna… the EMI antenna may include a “dummy” wire provided within the lead” in [0064]) having a distal end connected to the at least one dummy contact ((332 in Fig. 3) and a proximal end coupled to the dummy terminal contact (353 in Fig. 3, “internal conductors coupled to lead connectors (not shown) to interface with lead connectors 353” in [0051], and “inactive electrode E0 is coupled to a comparator circuit 548” in [0077]).
PNG
media_image1.png
263
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Boor teaches a high pass filter (523 in fig 5 and “a DC blocking capacitor 523” in [0078]) configured to block low frequency signals passing through the at least one conductive dummy wire (“The DC blocking capacitor 523 is configured to prevent DC current flow through the Case” in [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Boor teaches an implantable pulse generator (150 in Fig. 1, 310 in Fig. 3 and “The NS system 100 includes an implantable pulse generator (IPG) 150” in [0037]), containing pulse generation circuitry, (152 in Fig. 1 and ”IPG 150 typically comprises a metallic housing or Can 158 that encloses a controller circuit 151, pulse generating circuitry 152” in [0037]) and a header attached to the pulse generator housing (170 in Fig. 1 and “the extension component 170 may connect with a “header” portion of the IPG” in [0039]), the header containing a first set of connector contacts coupled to feedthroughs that connect to the pulse generation circuitry (353 in Fig. 3 and “lead body 331, preferably incarcerating a plurality of internal conductors coupled to lead connectors (not shown) to interface with lead connectors 353 of IPG 310” in [0051]), and the at least one dummy contact (the EMI antenna (e.g., inactive electrode E0 and/or wire) may be utilized to provide an EMI feedback signal” in [0077]) that couples, via a high pass filter or (523 in Fig. 5 and “a DC blocking capacitor 523 that is modeled in series with the CASE electrode and a COMMON node 540” in [0078]), to the pulse generator housing (the COMMON node, where electrodes E0, E1, and E2 connect” in [0075]. Also see annotated excerpt of fire 5, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boor in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2014/0275968, hereinafter Stevenson).
Regarding claim 3, Boor teaches the lead of claim 1 as set forth above, the at least one dummy contact includes a plurality of dummy contacts (“the EMI antenna may include one or more Kelvin connect electrodes of unused electrodes (e.g., any one or more of the electrodes 332-335)” in [0048]); the at least one conductive dummy wire includes a plurality of conductive dummy wires (“lead body 331, preferably incarcerating a plurality of internal conductors” in [0051]); and each dummy contact is connected to a separate conductive dummy wire (353 and 332-335 in Fig. 3 and “ The internal conductors provide electrical connection from individual lead connectors to each of a corresponding one of electrodes 332-335” in [0051]);
However, Boor does not teach wherein: the dummy terminal contact is a single dummy terminal contact; and each conductive dummy wire couples to the single dummy terminal contact.
Stevenson teaches a surrogate implantable medical device that includes a thermally conductive and electrically conductive housing (abstract). Stevenson teaches that when an active implantable medical device (AIMD) is removed, the implanted leads are often difficult and dangerous to remove because tissue typically overgrows and encapsulates the implanted leads ([0150]). These abandoned leads become problematic as an abandoned lead can heat during an MRI procedure just as an active lead would ([0017]). However, the abandoned lead is not electrically coupled to an AIMD housing and is therefore not able to dissipate its energy safely into an AIMD housing away from vital body tissue ([0017]).
This surrogate implantable medical device has no internal battery, electronic circuits or the like. Its only purpose is to provide a relatively large surface area to dissipate energy in the pocket which will enable the patient to safely undergo an MRI without the need for the patient to undergo extraction of leads. Lead extraction is a difficult and lengthy procedure that has a number of significant risks associated with it. When leads are implanted for long periods of time, they tend to be overgrown by tissues ([0149]).
In Fig. 24, Stevenson shows an application of their device with leads (104 & 106 in Fig 24) that have been unplugged from an AIMD (a plurality of conductive dummy wires) while the distal electrodes of those leads (104c & 106c in Fig. 24) remain implanted, but no longer connected to stimulation circuitry (a plurality of dummy contacts connected to a separate conductive dummy wire). These leads conductors are then connected to the common ground of the surrogate IMD housing (112 in Fig. 24). By grounding all of the lead conductors to the IMD housing, the housing (a single dummy terminal contact) becomes an energy dissipating surface ([0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to apply the technique of grounding multiple non-stimulating leads to a single common terminal taught by Stevenson to the one or more inactive electrodes of the device taught by Boor for the purpose of safely dissipating energy absorbed by the electrodes during an MRI procedure.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boor in view of Offutt et al. (US 2023/0074492 published on 3/9/2023 and filed on 9/7/2021, hereinafter Offutt).
Regarding claims 4-6, Boor teaches the lead of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Boor does not teach wherein the at least one dummy contact is formed from a biocompatible and conductive material.
Offutt teaches an implantable medical device or IMD (10 in Fig. 1) with one or more electrodes for stimulating a tibial nerve ([0020]) that includes both a primary (418) and a secondary (420) electrode (Fig. 4). The secondary electrode, also called a case electrode, can electrode, or reference electrode, is included in the housing ([0071-0072]). This secondary electrode may be defined by an area of the body of the titanium (wherein the at least one dummy contact is formed from the biocompatible conductive material titanium) housing of the IMD [0081]. The primary electrode consists of a contact plate mounted in a header unit, and is separated from the rest of the body of the device by a dielectric mount ([0076]). Unlike the contact surface of the secondary electrode, which can be an exposed conductive area of the housing, and therefore made of the same material as the housing, the contact surface of the primary electrode may be made of a different material than the body of the device or the body of the primary electrode, such as platinum iridium (wherein the at least one electrode is formed from platinum). Using these different materials has the benefit of reducing or eliminating the potential for charge buildup on the external surface of device 400 during operation ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to apply the use of titanium and platinum as different materials on different contacts taught by Offutt to the electrode and dummy contacts of the device taught by Boor for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the potential for charge buildup.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boor in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2012/0253340, hereinafter Stevenson ‘340).
Regarding claims 7 & 8, Boor teaches the lead of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Boor does not teach wherein the at least one electrode includes eight electrodes and the at least one dummy contact includes eight dummy contacts.
Stevenson ‘340 teaches composite RF current attenuators for a medical lead (Abstract & Title). These attenuators include a bandstop filter that presents a very high impedance at a selected resonant center frequency such as the range of MRI RF pulse frequencies. This impedance prevents currents from circulating through the distal electrode into body tissue at these selected frequencies and provides a very high degree of important protection to the patient against electrode overheating ([0186]). Stevenson ‘340 also teaches that the distal tip electrode itself can act as its own antenna wherein eddy currents can create heating through both RF field coupling to the lead and currents induced between the distal Tip electrode and tissue during MRI RF pulse transmission. This distal tip heating can lead to tissue ablation ([0019]). Stevenson ‘340 then gives the example of an 8 electrode paddle electrode array with either conductor leads, noting that it is very important that the electrodes of the array do not overheat since they are in direct contact with body tissue (Fig. 102 and [0293]). TO mitigate the possibility of overheating, Stevenson ‘340 teaches placing of composite RF current attenuators in series each of the conductors that make up the lead bundle, with one attenuator for each electrode contact (a defined number of dummy contacts, wherein the defined number of electrodes is the same as the defined number of dummy contacts) thereby preventing inadvertent overheating (188 and 420 in Fig. 109 and [0300]). In fig.s 102 and 103, Stevenson (2009) illustrates this technique applied to a paddle electrode array (Fig 102) with eight (eight electrodes, a defined number greater than two) electrode contacts (392 in Fig. 103) and eight (eight dummy contacts, the same defined number greater than two) current attenuators (188 in Fig. 103 and in [0294]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to apply the use of a separate protective element to each individual electrode contact with eight contacts and eight protective elements taught by Stevenson ‘340 to the implantable lead taught by Boor for the purpose of that the electrodes of the array do not overheat and cause tissue ablation.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boor in view of Offutt and Stevenson.
With regard to claim 13 & 16, Boor teaches an implantable lead (Fig.s 1-3 and “a lead body 172” in [0043]) comprising: a lead body having a distal end, a proximal end, and a longitudinal length (“material that extend from a proximal end of lead 110, proximate to the IPG 150, to its distal end” in [0043]); a plurality of electrodes disposed along the distal end of the lead body (332-335 in Fig. 3 and “Lead 330 further includes electrodes 332-335” in [0051]); a plurality of distal dummy contacts disposed along the lead body (332-335 in Fig. 3 and “The EMI antenna may be implemented in various manners, such as utilizing an inactive electrode (e.g., one of electrodes 332-335)” in [0048]); a plurality of terminal electrode contacts disposed along the proximal end of the lead body (“internal conductors coupled to lead connectors (not shown) to interface with lead connectors 353 of IPG 310” in [0051]); and a plurality of conductive wires (“lead body 331, preferably incarcerating a plurality of internal conductors” in [0051]) electrically coupling the plurality of electrodes to the plurality of terminal electrode contacts (353 in Fig. 3 and “coupled to lead connectors (not shown) to interface with lead connectors 353 of IPG 310” in [0051]);
Boor does not teach the plurality of electrodes formed from a first conductive material, platinum; the plurality of dummy contacts formed from a second conductive material different from the first conductive material, titanium; and wherein the plurality of dummy contacts are not coupled to any terminal electrode contacts.
Offutt teaches an implantable medical device with a and secondary electrode may be defined by an area of the body of the titanium housing (dummy contacts formed from titanium) of the IMD ([0081]) and a contact surface of the primary electrode made of a different material than the body of the device or the body of the primary electrode, such as platinum iridium (electrodes formed from platinum) to reduce or eliminate the potential for charge buildup on the external surface of device during operation ([0080]), as set forth above in claims 4-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to apply the use of titanium and platinum as different materials on different contacts taught by Offutt to the electrode and dummy contacts of the device taught by Boor for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the potential for charge buildup.
Stevenson teaches the grounding of multiple unused contact leads to the housing of an IMD as a common ground (the plurality of dummy contacts are not coupled to any terminal electrode contacts) to dissipate energy during an MRI procedure as set forth above in claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant application to apply the technique of grounding multiple non-stimulating leads to a single non-terminal electrode contact taught by Stevenson to the one or more inactive electrodes of the device taught by Boor for the purpose of safely dissipating energy absorbed by the electrodes during an MRI procedure.
With regard to claim 14-15, Boor further teaches a plurality of dummy wires (“lead body 331, preferably incarcerating a plurality of internal conductors” in [0051]) having distal ends electrically coupled to the plurality of dummy contacts (332-335 in Fig. 3 and “the EMI antenna may include one or more Kelvin connect electrodes of unused electrodes (e.g., any one or more of the electrodes 332-335)” in [0048]) and proximal ends coupled to the terminal dummy contact positioned along the proximal end of the lead body (353 in Fig. 3, “internal conductors coupled to lead connectors (not shown) to interface with lead connectors 353” in [0051], and “inactive electrode E0 is coupled to a comparator circuit 548” in [0077]).
With regard to claim 17, Boor further teaches an electrical stimulation system comprising the lead of claim 14, and an implantable pulse generator (150 in Fig. 1, 310 in Fig. 3 and “The NS system 100 includes an implantable pulse generator (IPG) 150” in [0037]) including: a housing containing a power source and an electronic subassembly (battery 321 in Fig. 3, 151-157 in Fig. 1, and “a controller circuit 151, pulse generating circuitry 152, a charging coil 153, a battery 154, a communication circuit 155, battery charging circuitry 156, switching circuitry 157” in [0038]); a header coupled to the housing having a port for receiving the lead therein (Fig 1, Fig. 3, and “the extension component 170 may connect with a “header” portion of the IPG 150”), and including electrode connectors and a dummy connector (“internal electrical connections may be made through respective conductive components” in [0039]); a feedthrough coupling the electrode connectors to the electronic subassembly (315 in Fig. 3 and “Output driver circuitry 315 generates and delivers pulses to selected ones of electrodes 332-335”); and a high pass filter or a switch electrically (“The DC blocking capacitor 523 is configured to prevent DC current flow through the Case” in [0078]) coupling the dummy connector to the housing (523 in Fig. 5 and “a DC blocking capacitor 523 that is modeled in series with the CASE electrode and a COMMON node 540” in [0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130274820 A1.
Abstract
An implantable control module for an electrical stimulation system includes an electronic subassembly disposed in a casing. A sealed feedthrough housing is disposed along a portion of the casing. An electrically-conductive portion of the feedthrough housing is electrically coupled to an electrically-conductive portion of the casing. Feedthrough pins extend through the feedthrough housing and couple to the electronic subassembly via conductive pathways disposed in the casing. At least a portion of the conductive pathways extend along a non-conductive substrate. An RF-diverting assembly is disposed in the casing. The RF-diverting assembly includes a feedthrough ground electrically coupled to the electrically-conductive portion of the feedthrough housing. The RF-diverting assembly also includes a plurality of capacitive elements each coupling a different one of the plurality of conductive pathways to the feedthrough ground.
Technical Background
Conventional implanted electrical stimulation systems are often incompatible with magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") due to the large radio frequency ("RF") pulses used during MRI. The RF pulses can generate transient signals in the conductors and electrodes of an implanted lead. These signals can have deleterious effects including, for example, unwanted heating of the tissue causing tissue damage, induced currents in the lead, or premature failure of electronic components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-0136. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm M-Th.
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.
/W.P.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights