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 .
Claims 1-66 and 80-86 have been canceled. Claims 67-79 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 68-79 are objected to because of the following informalities: In particular, the claims are incorrectly indicated as being new claims when they have already been presented in the claim amendment filed 10/30/2025. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 67-71 & 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (US 20070279002 A1, on the record) in view of Boyden et al. (“Boyden”, US 20080208010 A1, on the record), Nycz et al. (“Nycz”, US 20060232408 A1, on the record), Birk et al. (“Birk”, US 20080004642 A1, on the record) and Stevenson et al. (“Stevenson” US 20100060431 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 67, Partovi discloses a medical device system (¶60; Fig. 2) for monitoring a physiological parameter in the body of a patient (Partovi discloses, in ¶109 with reference to Fig. 2, that the receiver may be built into medical devices that are implanted and used as monitoring devices, such as pace makers, cochlear implants, or other monitoring devices. While, Partovi does not explicitly disclose that a specific monitored parameter. Boyden discloses, in ¶6, the concept of configuring implanted monitoring device to measure physiological parameters. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring implanted monitoring device to measure physiological parameters, with the motivation to enhance the monitoring features of the implant device. As per the limitation, the medical device system comprising: an implantable medical device comprising an RFID transceiver. Ncyz discloses, in ¶27, the concept of configuring implanted device to communicate via a transceiver/antenna combination. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring implanted device to communicate via a transceiver/antenna combination, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation an external charger comprising an RFID transceiver. Partovi discloses in, ¶126, that the system uses a RFID reader. Ncyz discloses, in ¶24, the concept of configuring a RFID reader with a transceiver to facilitate communication functions.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a RFID reader with a transceiver to facilitate communication functions, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation wherein the RFID transceiver of the implantable medical device is configured to wirelessly receive energy transmitted from the RFID transceiver of the external charger (Partovi: ¶15; abstract; Nycz: ¶7, 53). As per the limitation a wireless feedback system arranged to transmit information based on the monitored physiological parameter using the RFID transceiver, from the implantable medical device to the external charger, in response to an interrogating signal sent from the RFID transceiver of the external charger and energy transmitted from the RFID transceiver of the external charger. Partovi discloses, in ¶141, that the system uses RFID interrogation functions to enable the devices to communicate with each other. Birk discloses, in ¶12, the concept of performing interrogation signaling to a device influences the receiving device to provide response signal (which can be interpreted as providing feedback signal). Stevenson discloses, in ¶¶74-79 with reference to Figs. 3 & 17-20, the concept of configuring an implantable RFID communication device to be in communication with a measuring device to obtain readings indicative of physiological parameters to assist in treatment of a patient. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of performing interrogation signaling to a device influences the receiving device to provide response signal and the concept of configuring an implantable RFID communication device to be in communication with a measuring device to obtain readings indicative of physiological parameters, with the motivation to enhance the communication and enable patient treatment features of the system. As per the limitation an evaluation unit for evaluating signals received from the RFID transceiver of the implantable medical device. Birk discloses, in ¶¶11-12, the concept of proving a processing module to receive response signal from an implant during interrogation to assist in locating the implant device position.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of proving a processing module to receive response signal from an implant during interrogation to assist in locating the implant device position, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation the external charger is configured to detect a magnetic or electromagnetic field generated by the RFID transceiver of the implantable medical device in response to a transmittal of energy from the RFID transceiver of the external charger, the evaluation unit is configured to determine the strength of the detected magnetic or electromagnetic field (Birk: ¶¶11-12), and the evaluation unit is configured to determine whether the strength of the detected magnetic or electromagnetic field is increased (Birk: ¶18) as a user moves the external charger relative to the body of the patient (Birk: ¶60). 2) Regarding claim 68 the medical device system according to claim 67, wherein the external charger is arranged to display information derived from the detected strength of the magnetic or electromagnetic field on a display (Birk: ¶¶11, 22, 27-28, 30-31, 43, 45-46; Figs. 4 & 8, with regard to the display indicating when the external device is being position by the user’s movement thereof to indicate desired relative positioning with the implant device’s location based on the received signal strength provided by the RFID tag of the implanted device). 3) Regarding claim 69 the medical device system according to claim 67, wherein the system further comprises an indicator (Birk: ¶44; Fig. 4) arranged to indicate based on the transfer of wireless energy from the RFID transceiver of the external charger external charger to the RFID transceiver of the implantable medical device (Birk discloses, in ¶32, that the tag are operated by magnetic energy in order to enable the tag to transmit signals as a response, hence the RFID tag provides the strength indication corresponding to its response signal for being interrogated (see ¶11) in response to the magnetic energy transmitted from the external device during interrogation operations providing the strength information used to provide location information to the display, see ¶¶11, 22, 27-28, 30-31, 43, 45-46; Fig. 4). 4) Regarding claim 70 the medical device system according to claim 67, wherein the system further comprises an indicator (Birk: ¶44; Fig. 4) arranged to indicate an optimal position of the RFID transceiver of the external charger relative to the RFID transceiver of the implantable medical device (Birk: ¶¶11, 22, 27-28, 30-31, 43, 45-46; Figs. 4 & 8). 5) Regarding claim 71 the medical device system according to claim 67, wherein the external charger comprises a sensor (Birk: ¶32-35 with reference to Fig. 2: receiver processing module, as disclosed the receiver processing module detects transmitted signals from the RFID tag of the implanted device to enable provision of the location information determined from the detected transmitted signals from the RFID tag of the implanted device) arranged to generate a signal indicative of a magnetic or electromagnetic field returning from the RFID transceiver of the implantable medical device (Birk: ¶¶11, 22, 27-28, 30-31, 43, 45-46; Figs. 4 & 8). 6) Regarding claim 73, Partovi, Boyden, Nycz, Birk and Stevenson with the same motivation as presented in the rejection of claim 67, teach a medical device system for monitoring a physiological parameter in the body of a patient (see analysis of the rejection of claim 67), the medical device system comprising: an implantable medical device comprising an energy receiver (see analysis of the rejection of claim 67; also see Partovi: ¶15; abstract; Nycz: ¶7, 53; Birk: ¶¶11-12), an external charger comprising an energy transmitter (see analysis of the rejection of claim 67), wherein the energy receiver is configured to wirelessly receive energy transmitted from the energy transmitter (Partovi: ¶15; abstract; Nycz: ¶7, 53; Birk: ¶¶11-12),
a wireless feedback system arranged to transmit information from the implantable medical device to the external charger, wherein the information is sent in response to an interrogating signal sent from the external charger (Birk: ¶¶11-12), and
an evaluation unit for evaluating signals received from the implantable medical device (see analysis of the rejection of claim 67), wherein:
the external charger is configured to detect a magnetic or electromagnetic field generated by the implantable medical device in response to a transmittal of energy from the external charger (see analysis of the rejection of claim 67),
the evaluation unit is configured to determine the strength of the detected magnetic or electromagnetic field (Birk: ¶¶11-12, 42-43, 45), and
the evaluation unit is configured to determine whether the signal strength (Birk: ¶¶8-11, 27-28) is improved as a user moves the external charger relative to the body of the patient (Birk: ¶¶27-28, 31; Figs. 2-4, with regard to the display indicating the external device getting to an ideal position relative to the implant device’s location). 7) Regarding claim 74 the medical device system according to claim 73, wherein the external charger is arranged to display information derived from the detected strength of the magnetic or electromagnetic field on a display (see analysis of the rejection of claim 68).
Claim(s) 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Boyden, Nycz, Birk and Stevenson, and in further view of Figueiredo et al. (“Figueiredo”, US 20090259273 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 72 the medical device system according to claim 67, wherein the implantable medical device comprises a sensor arranged to generate a signal indicative of a magnetic or electromagnetic field transmitted from the RFID transceiver of the external charger, and wherein the implantable medical device is configured to transmit a signal to the external charger, the signal being derived from the signal indicative of the magnetic or electromagnetic field transmitted from the RFID transceiver of the external charger, using the RFID transceiver. Figueiredo discloses, in ¶48 with reference to Fig. 3, the concept of providing an implant device with a sensor to measure the voltage created corresponding to received transferred energy and transmitting the measurement back via a transmitting device of the implant device to an external device to aid in charging of the implant device. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing an implant device with a sensor to measure the voltage created corresponding to received transferred energy and transmitting the measurement back via a transmitting device of the implant device to an external device to aid in charging of the implant device, with the motivation to enhance the charging features and the communication features of the system
Claim(s) 75-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Boyden, Nycz, Birk and Stevenson, and in further view of Meadows et al. (“Meadows”, US 7295878 B1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 75 the medical device system according to claim 73, wherein the system further comprises an indicator arranged to indicate better transfer of wireless energy from the external charger to the implantable medical device. Partovi discloses, in Fig. 2, that the external device is a charger. Birk discloses, in ¶¶11, 43-44 to the display indicating when the external device is being position by the user’s movement thereof to indicate desired relative positioning with the implant device’s location based on the received signal strength provided by the RFID tag of the implanted device. Meadows discloses, in Col. 17, lines 5-24 with reference to Fig. 6, the concept of configuring a charging device to visual indicate better alignment corresponding to energy transfer provided to an implant device (i.e., IPG 100) and change of reflected impedance signalling provided by the IPG to enable charging with optimum energy transfer, see Col. 20, lines 3-23. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a charging device to visual indicate better alignment corresponding to energy transfer provided to an implant device and change of reflected impedance signalling provided by the implant device to enable charging with optimum energy transfer, with the motivation to enhance the charging features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 76 the medical device system according to claim 73, wherein the system further comprises an indicator arranged to indicate an optimal position of the external charger relative to the implantable medical device. Partovi discloses, in Fig. 2, that the external device is a charger. Birk discloses, in ¶¶11, 43-44 to the display indicating when the external device is being position by the user’s movement thereof to indicate desired relative positioning with the implant device’s location based on the received signal strength provided by the RFID tag of the implanted device. Meadows discloses, in Col. 17, lines 5-24 with reference to Figs. 6-9, the concept of configuring a charging device to visual indicate better alignment corresponding to energy transfer provided to an implant device (i.e., IPG 100) and change of reflected impedance signalling provided by the IPG to enable charging with optimum energy transfer, see Col. 20, lines 3-23, which can be interpreted as providing an indication of optimum position alignment for charging the implant device.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a charging device to visual indicate better alignment corresponding to energy transfer provided to an implant device and change of reflected impedance signalling provided by the implant device to enable charging with optimum energy transfer, with the motivation to enhance the charging features of the system. 3) Regarding claim 77 the medical device system according to claim 73, with the same motivation to combine the teaching by Meadows in the rejection of claims 75-76, Partovi, Boyden, Nycz, Birk, Stevenson and Meadows teach wherein the implantable medical device comprises a first coil (Meadows: Fig. 7A: coil 680; or Fig. 7B: coil 680) configured to receive wirelessly transmitted energy and wherein the external charger comprises a second coil (Meadows: Fig. 7A: coil 279) configured to transmit energy wirelessly (Meadows: Col. 17, line 5 through Col. 20, line 23).
Claim(s) 78-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi in view of Boyden, Nycz, Birk, Stevenson and Meadows, and in further view of Figueiredo. 1) Regarding claim 78 the medical device system according to claim 73, with the same motivation to combine the teaching by Meadows in the rejection of claims 75-76, Partovi, Boyden, Nycz, Birk, Stevenson and Meadows teach wherein the external charger comprises a sensor (Meadows discloses, in Col. 19, line 49 through Col. 20, line 2; Fig. 7A, the use of rectifier 682 to create voltage corresponding to the transferred energy. Figueiredo discloses, in ¶48 with reference to Fig. 3, the concept of providing an implant device with a sensor to measure the voltage created corresponding to received transferred energy and transmitting the measurement back to an external device to aid in charging of the implant device. At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing an implant device with a sensor to measure the voltage created corresponding to received transferred energy and transmitting the measurement back to an external device to aid in charging of the implant device, with the motivation to enhance the charging features of the system) arranged to generate a signal indicative of a magnetic or electromagnetic field returning from the first coil (Figueiredo: ¶¶47-48). 2) Regarding claim 79 the medical device system according to claim 73, with the same motivation to combine the teaching by Meadows in the rejection of claims 75-76 and the motivation to combine the teachings by Figueiredo in the rejection of claim 78, Partovi, Boyden, Nycz, Birk, Stevenson, Meadows and Figueiredo teach wherein the implantable medical device comprises a sensor arranged to generate a signal indicative of a magnetic or electromagnetic field transmitted from the external charger (see analysis of the rejection of claim 78), and wherein the implantable medical device is configured to transmit a signal to the external charger, the signal being derived from the signal indicative of the magnetic or electromagnetic field transmitted from the external charger (see analysis of the rejection of claim 78).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/03/2025 have been considered but are moot because the amendments change the scope. Furthermore, the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of prior art reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685