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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 226, 228. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informality: “unpolar” in Fig. 6 should be changed to read “unipolar”. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the first occurrence of “delay” should be deleted (line 11).
In claim 13, the second comma should be deleted (line 1).
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 7-8, 16-17, 18-20 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.
Claims 7, 16, 18 recites the limitation "the determination steps" or “the determining steps” in lines 5, 6-7, 3-4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 16, 18 recite the limitation "the calculation step" or “the calculating step” in lines 5, 7, 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas under the mental processes grouping, without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step (1)
The claimed invention in claims 1-20 are directed to a system and method, and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
Step (2a) Prong 1 (Judicial Exception)
Regarding claims 1-20, the recited steps are directed towards mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite:
determine a sensed right atrium (RAs) event or a paced right atrial (RAp) event (RAs,p event);
determine a sensed right ventricle (RVs) event by detecting a cardiac activity (CA) signal reaches a threshold amplitude and determine a maximum amplitude in a determined period of time after the CA signal reaches the threshold amplitude;
determine an RAs,p-RVs interval between the RAs,p event and RVs event; and
calculate an atrioventricular delay (AV) delay based on the RAs,p-RVs interval.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations require determining a right atrium event, determining a right ventricle event based on a threshold/maximum amplitude, calculating an interval, then determining an atrioventricular delay. These limitations are processes that, as drafted, cover that which can be wholly performed in a person’s mind via a series of mental observations and judgements. In particular, a person can observe a patient’s heart rate to determine atrial/ventricular events, measure the time between the events, and calculate an AV delay. These are data gathering and processing steps (determine, detecting, calculate) that reflect mental processes and clinical decision rules.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas, specifically mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite the corresponding apparatus associated with the system/method, including an IMD, electrode lead, and processors. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these claims also recite a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas under the mental processes bucket.
The additional limitations in claims 2-11, 13-20 (type of pacing therapy, type of IMD, interval adjustments, signal types, conditions for calculating an updated AV delay value) comprise additional abstract ideas and/or further limit the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 12.
Step (2a) Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application)
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
For claims 1, 3-12, 14-20, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 2 and 13 include integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (controlling electrode to deliver pacing therapy based on AV delay).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the additional elements of an IMD and lead with an electrode amounts to recitation of a generic implantable device with an electrode lead. Merely stating that the abstract idea will be for "managing therapy" is an instruction to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. As in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), limiting an abstract idea to a field of use or adding generic hardware does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “managing therapy” encompasses providing an alert or recommendation, which would be considered post-solution activity of providing results using generic components.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the additional element of a processor/memory amounts to recitation of a generic processor. This additional element merely defines the field of use of the current claim. This additional element does not practically integrate the judicial exception because this element does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mental processes grouping.
Step (2b) (Inventive Concept)
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of an IMD, lead with an electrode, and processor/memory in the field of pacing therapy are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry as indicated in the following references:
Andersen (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0337563) teaches that an IMD can include a conventional pacemaker [0040] and pacing electrode leads are conventional [0077].
Katra et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0357513) teaches that conventional operating systems perform memory management [0394].
Dependent claim 3 recites a dual chamber implantable pulse generator, which is also recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be well-known, routine and conventional in the art as indicated in the following reference:
Sun et al. (US Patent No. 5,755,739) teaches that a dual chamber IPG is part of a conventional dual chamber pacemaker system (col. 9, ll. 14-17).
Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-20 are thus rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting patent-ineligible subject matter- abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiao et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0249849), hereinafter ‘Qiao’.
Regarding claim 1, Qiao teaches an implantable medical device (IMD) (stimulation device 110, Fig. 1) for managing therapy ([0011], implantable medical system with one or more electrodes for sensing/pacing) comprising:
a lead (leads 120, 121, 130, 124, Fig. 1) with an electrode (atrial tip electrode 122, Fig. 1, [0044]);
a memory (memory 394, Fig. 3) configured to store program instructions ([0076], stores/modifies programmable operating parameters); and
one or more processors ([0057], microcontroller 360 includes microprocessor or equivalent circuitry, Fig. 3) configured to execute the program instructions to:
determine a sensed right atrium (RAs) event or a paced right atrial (RAp) event (RAs,p event) (step 504, Fig. 5, [0098], sense or pace an atrial event (AP or AS));
determine a sensed right ventricle (RVs) event (VS, Fig. 8) by detecting a cardiac activity (CA) signal (His IEGM 802, Fig. 8) reaches a threshold amplitude (multi-level sense threshold 804, Fig. 8) and determine a maximum amplitude (peak amplitude, Fig. 8) in a determined period of time after the CA signal reaches the threshold amplitude [0126];
determine an RAs,p-RVs interval between the RAs,p event and RVs event ([0130], AS/AP-VS interval);
calculate an atrioventricular (AV) delay based on the RAs,p-RVs interval ([0011], AVD begins after the sensed or paced atrial event); and
manage therapy, provided by the IMD, based on the AV delay that is calculated ([0078], microcontroller adjusts various pacing parameters such as rate, stimulation parameters, [0018], pacing patient at shortened AVD).
Regarding claim 2, Qiao teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to manage the therapy by controlling the electrode to deliver left bundle branch area pacing therapy based on the AV delay (His bundle lead 121, His tip electrode 116, Fig. 1, [0049], left bundle branch).
Regarding claim 3, Qiao teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the IMD is a dual chamber implantable pulse generator (IPG) ([0036], implantable dual chamber cardiac stimulation device).
Regarding claim 5, Qiao teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the CA signal is an intrinsic CA signal ([0083], intrinsic conduction signals).
Regarding claim 12, Qiao teaches a method for managing therapy ([0011], implantable medical system with one or more electrodes for sensing/pacing) comprising:
determining, with one or more processors (([0057], microcontroller 360 includes microprocessor or equivalent circuitry, Fig. 3)) of an implantable medical device (IMD) (stimulation device 110, Fig. 1), a sensed right atrium (RAs) event or a paced right atrium (RAp) event (RAs,p event) of a cardiac activity (CA) signal (step 504, Fig. 5, [0098], sense or pace an atrial event (AP or AS));
determining, with the one or more processors of the IMD, a sensed right ventricle (RVs) event (VS, Fig. 8) of the cardiac activity (CA) signal (His IEGM 802, Fig. 8) by detecting the CA signal reaches a threshold amplitude (multi-level sense threshold 804, Fig. 8) and determining a maximum amplitude (peak amplitude, Fig. 8) in a determined period of time after the CA signal reaches the threshold amplitude [0126];
determining, with the one or more processors of the IMD, an RAs,p-RVs interval between the RAs,p event and RVs event ([0130], AS/AP-VS interval);
calculating, with the one or more processors of the IMD, an atrioventricular delay (AV delay) based on the RAs,p-RVs interval ([0011], AVD begins after the sensed or paced atrial event); and
managing therapy, provided by the IMD, based on the AV delay calculated ([0078], microcontroller adjusts various pacing parameters such as rate, stimulation parameters, [0018], pacing patient at shortened AVD).
Regarding claim 13, Qiao teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
wherein managing the therapy, includes delivering, with an electrode of the IMD (His tip electrode 116, Fig. 1), pacing therapy based on the AV delay to a left bundle branch (LLB) area of a heart ([0049], left bundle branch).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0249849) in view of Badie et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0094056), hereinafter ‘Badie’.
Regarding claim 4, Qiao teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach subtracting a portion of the RAs,p-RVs interval from the RAs,p-RVs interval.
Badie teaches a device/method for dynamic AV delay adjustment (abstract), further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the AV delay by subtracting a determined percentage of the RAs,p-RVs interval from the RAs,p-RVs interval ([0011], measure AVD by subtracting an offset from As-Vs interval, [0052], percentage based).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include subtracting off a portion of the RAs,p-RVs interval. Doing so would allow for the pacing to be based on recorded physiologic characteristics, as recognized by Badie [0088].
Regarding claim 6, Qiao teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach utilizing the AV delay for a determined number of cardiac signals.
Badie teaches a device/method for dynamic AV delay adjustment (abstract), further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
after calculating the AV delay, set the AV delay as an initial AV delay ([0015], first AV delay); and
utilize the initial AV delay to manage the therapy for a determined number of CA signals ([0111], utilize AVD values for corresponding numbers of cardiac beats, Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include utilizing the AV delay for a determined number of cardiac signals. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 7, Qiao and Badie teach the device of claim 6. Badie teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
count a number of the CA signals after a first CA signal;
compare a number of counted CA signals to the determined number of CA signals;
repeat each of the determination steps and the calculation step after the number of counted CA signals matches the determined number of CA signals, to calculate an updated AV delay (Figs. 3A, 4, steps 404/406-410, arrows with beat values); and
manage the therapy provided by the IMD, based on the updated AV delay (Fig. 3B, step 362, manage pacing therapy).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include updating the AV delay after a certain number of cardiac signals has passed. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 8, Qiao and Badie teach the device of claim 7. Badie teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to reset a count of the number of counted CA signals in response to calculating the updated AV delay (Fig. 4, step 416 to 410, 300 cardiac beats are recounted).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include recounting the number of cardiac signals after updating the AV delay. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 9, Qiao teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach updating the AV delay if the sensed RAs,p-RVs interval is less than the AV delay.
Badie teaches a device/method for dynamic AV delay adjustment (abstract), further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
after calculating the AV delay, determine a second RAs,p-RVs interval based on a second CA signal (step 410, Fig. 4);
compare the second RAs,p-RVs interval to the AV delay; and
responsive to the second RAs,p-RVs interval being less than the AV delay, calculate an updated AV delay based on the second RAs,p-RVs interval (step 416, Fig. 4, [0114], if processors determine it is desirable to further reduce AVD values after already being, first enter search mode).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include updating the AV delay if the sensed RAs,p-RVs interval is less than the AV delay. Doing so would allow for the processors to reassess the AV interval, as recognized by Badie [0114].
Regarding claim 10, Qiao and Badie teach the device of claim 9. Badie teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
count a number of CA signals obtained after a first CA signal,
compare a counted number of CA signals to a determined number of CA signals; and
reset the counted number of the CA signals in response to calculating the updated AV delay (Fig. 4, step 416 to 410, 300 cardiac beats are recounted).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include recounting the number of cardiac signals after updating the AV delay. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 11, Qiao and Badie teach the device of claim 9. Badie teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to manage the therapy, provided by the IMD, based on the updated AV delay (Fig. 3B, step 362, manage pacing therapy).
Qiao teaches the device further comprising:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to manage the therapy by controlling the electrode to deliver left bundle branch area pacing therapy based on the updated AV delay (His bundle lead 121, His tip electrode 116, Fig. 1, [0049], left bundle branch).
Regarding claim 14, Qiao teaches the method of claim 12, but does not teach reducing the RAs,p-RVs interval.
Badie teaches a device/method for dynamic AV delay adjustment (abstract), further comprising:
wherein calculating the AV delay includes reducing the RAs,p-RVs interval by a determined percentage of the RAs,p-RVs interval ([0011], measure AVD by subtracting an offset from As-Vs interval, [0052], percentage based).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include reducing the RAs,p-RVs interval. Doing so would allow for the pacing to be based on recorded physiologic characteristics, as recognized by Badie [0088].
Regarding claim 15, Qiao teaches the method of claim 12, but does not teach utilizing the AV delay for a determined number of cardiac signals.
Badie teaches a device/method for dynamic AV delay adjustment (abstract), further comprising:
after calculating the AV delay, setting, with the one or more processors of the IMD, the AV delay as an initial AV delay ([0015], first AV delay); and
utilizing, with the one or more processors, the initial AV delay to manage the therapy for a determined number of CA signals ([0111], utilize AVD values for corresponding numbers of cardiac beats, Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include utilizing the AV delay for a determined number of cardiac signals. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 16, Qiao and Badie teach the method of claim 15. Badie teaches the method further comprising:
counting, with the one or more processors of the IMD, a counted number of the CA signals,
comparing, with the one or more processors of the IMD, the counted number of CA signals to the determined number of CA signals;
repeating, with the one or more processors of the IMD, each of the determining steps and the
calculating step to calculate an updated AV delay after the determined number of CA signals obtained is reached (Figs. 3A, 4, steps 404/406-410, arrows with beat values); and
utilizing, with the one or more processors, the updated AV delay to manage the therapy (Fig. 3B, step 362, manage pacing therapy).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include updating the AV delay after a certain number of cardiac signals has passed. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 17, Qiao and Badie teach the method of claim 16. Badie teaches the method further comprising:
resetting, with the one or more processors of the IMD, the counted CA signals in response to calculating the updated AV delay (Fig. 4, step 416 to 410, 300 cardiac beats are recounted).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include recounting the number of cardiac signals after updating the AV delay. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 18, Qiao teaches the method of claim 12, but does not teach updating the AV delay if the sensed RAs,p-RVs interval is less than the AV delay.
Badie teaches a device/method for dynamic AV delay adjustment (abstract), further comprising:
measuring a current RAs,p-RVs interval for a current CA signal (step 410, Fig. 4); and
repeating, with the one or more processors of the IMD, each of the determining steps and the calculating step to calculate an updated AV delay in response to the current RAs,p-RVs interval being less than the AV delay (step 416, Fig. 4, [0114], if processors determine it is desirable to further reduce AVD values after already being, first enter search mode).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include updating the AV delay if the sensed RAs,p-RVs interval is less than the AV delay. Doing so would allow for the processors to reassess the AV interval, as recognized by Badie [0114].
Regarding claim 19, Qiao and Badie teach the method of claim 18. Badie teaches the method further comprising:
counting, with the one or more processors, a number of counted CA signals,
comparing, with the one or more processors of the IMD, the number of counted CA signals to a determined number of CA signals; and
resetting, with the one or more processors of the IMD, the number of counted CA signals in response to calculating the updated AV delay (Fig. 4, step 416 to 410, 300 cardiac beats are recounted).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qiao to incorporate the teachings of Badie to include recounting the number of cardiac signals after updating the AV delay. Doing so would allow pacing to be maintained before reentering a search mode, as recognized by Badie [0113].
Regarding claim 20, Qiao and Badie teach the method of claim 18. Qiao teaches the method further comprising:
delivering, with an electrode of the IMD, left bundle block area pacing therapy based on the updated AV delay (His bundle lead 121, His tip electrode 116, Fig. 1, [0049], left bundle branch).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghosh (US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0326215) teaches a method/device for adaptive cardiac therapy with evaluation of measured activation times (see Fig. 8, [0127]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L OKONAK whose telephone number is (571)272-1594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Benjamin 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.
/E.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights