DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites “…a PWM controller.” at Ln. 1-2, but should recite --…a pulse-width modulation (PWM) controller.--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 8, and Claim 9 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one inductor comprises dimensions for optimization of self inductance.” The Present Specification describes such “optimization of self inductance” at Para. [0036], but does so almost verbatim and provides no detail regarding what such dimensions actually entail. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to discern from the Present Specification whether any particular inductor with given dimensions “comprises dimensions for optimization of self inductance” as contemplated. Accordingly, “wherein the at least one inductor comprises dimensions for optimization of self inductance” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more switches are coupled between the at least one inductor and the current sensing circuit.” The Present Specification discusses the configuration of Claim 8 at Paras. [0038] through [0039] with reference to Figure 1 of the Present Drawings. The Present Specification describes only a single switch (i.e., “solid state switch 108”) “coupled between the at least one inductor and the current sensing circuit.” Independent Claim 2 (from which Claim 8 depends) recites the term “one or more switches” more broadly, and could reasonably be read to include a variety of disclosed switches of which “solid state switch 108” is one (e.g., H-bridge switches 111). However, no switch apart from “solid state switch 108” is positioned in the manner of Claim 8: that is, the configuration of Claim 8 is not disclosed to include “one or more switches.” The “one or more switches … coupled between the at least one inductor and the current sensing circuit” are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15 and 21 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one inductor comprises a 1 mH inductor.” It is grammatically unclear in what sense the term “a 1 mH inductor” limits the claim. For example, the term “a 1 mH inductor” could mean that “the at least one inductor” comprises only a single inductor (i.e., “at least one” is limited to “only one”) which single inductor has an inductance of 1 mH, that “the at least one inductor” comprises “at least one inductor” wherein a single inductor of however many inductors constitute the “at least one inductor” has an inductance of 1 mH, that the collective “at least one inductor” has a cumulative inductance of 1 mH, or something else.
For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 5 is being interpreted to mean that the collective “at least one inductor” has a cumulative inductance of 1 mH.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more switches are coupled between the at least one inductor and the current sensing circuit.” It is unclear in what sense “one or more switches” are coupled “between the at least one inductor and the current sensing circuit,” as the meaning of the term “between” is grammatically unclear in the context of two sets of multiple components. For example, in the instance covered by Claim 8 wherein “one or more switches” comprises multiple switches and “one or more inductors” comprises multiple inductors, it is unclear whether individual switches of the “one or more switches” are positioned “between” individual inductors of the “one or more inductors” with the “current sensing circuit” at one end, whether all switches of the “one or more switches” are positioned between all inductors of the “one or more inductors” and the “current sensing circuit” (it is noted that this configuration, while logically most likely, is not accurately reflected by the claim’s phrasing, and is not reflected in the Specification), or something else. The scope of Claim 8 is thus indefinite.
For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 8 is being interpreted to mean that at least one switch of the “one or more switches” is positioned between at least one inductor of the “one or more inductors” and the “current sensing circuit.”
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites “wherein current flowing through the one or more switches is measured by the current sensing circuit.” The term “is measured” reflects a use of the “current sensing circuit,” and it is unclear in what sense a method of using the “current sensing circuit” further limits the structure of apparatus Claim 2. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). The scope of Claim 9 is thus indefinite.
The Examiner notes that this issue could be resolved by amended Claim 9 to recite “wherein the current sensing circuit is configured to measure current flowing through the one or more switches,” or something to the same effect.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one polarity control circuit comprises a plurality of switches.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the at least one polarity control circuit.”
It appears that Claim 11 should depend from Claim 10. Claim 11 is being interpreted as if it were to further limit the “at least one polarity control circuit” of Claim 10.
It is unclear whether the “a plurality of switches” is intended to reference the same “switches” as the “one or more switches” of Claim 2 (e.g., the “one or more switches” of Claim 2 is “a plurality of switches” per Claim 11), different “switches” than the “one or more switches” of Claim 2, or something else.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Claims 12 and 13 recite “the at least one polarity control circuit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the at least one polarity control circuit.”
It appears that Claims 12 and 13 should depend from Claim 10. Claim 12 is being interpreted as if it were to further limit the “at least one polarity control circuit” of Claim 10. Claim 13 is being interpreted as if it were to further limit the “at least one polarity control circuit” of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites “wherein the boost converter circuit is configured to increase a voltage of the electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient in adjusting the therapeutic waveform being delivered to the patient.” It is grammatically unclear in what sense the phrase “in adjusting” limits the claim.
It appears the limitation “in adjusting…” is a typographical error not meant to be included, as the recitations “in adjusting the therapeutic waveform being delivered to the patient” and “configured to increase a voltage of the electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient” appear substantively the same. For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 15 is being interpreted to mean that the boost converter circuit is configured to increase voltage.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 recites “wherein the electrotherapy waveform comprises a pacing.” Claim 21 appears to be missing a word, and its scope is accordingly unclear.
For purposes of this Office Action, Claim 21 is being interpreted to mean that the electrotherapy waveform comprises a pacing waveform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 2, 3 and 8-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US 6,208,896 B11 to Mulhauser et al. (“Mulhauser”) as evidenced by wikipedia.org, "Boost Converter," accessed online 8/10/2026 via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Boost_converter (“Wikipedia”), Electrical Engineering StackExchange, "What is difference between step-up voltage regulator, DC-DC converter, boost regulator," accessed online 8/10/2026 via https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/364903/what-is-difference-between-step-up-voltage-regulator-dc-dc-converter-boost-reg, 3/27/18 (“StackExchange”) and microcontrollerslab.com, "Cuk converter circuit design using pic microcontroller," accessed online 8/10/2026 via https://microcontrollerslab.com/cuk-converter-circuit-design-using-pic-microcontroller/ (“Cuk Converter NPL”).
Regarding Independent Claim 2, Mulhauser discloses:
An apparatus for providing electrotherapy to a patient, the system comprising: (Abstract, “A method and apparatus for providing variable defibrillation waveforms…”);
a capacitor configured to store and release energy for the electrotherapy; (Fig. 4, “Capacitor 410;” Col. 11, Ln. 21-22, “Rapid-discharge energy storage device 120 of FIG. 2 is implemented in the circuit of FIG. 4 by capacitor 410;” Col. 10, Ln. 11-13; See “Annotated Figs. 2 and 4,” below);
Mulhauser’s “rapid-discharge energy storage device 120” is “configured to store and release energy for the electrotherapy” (see Mulhauser at Col. 10, Ln. 11-13, “As noted, rapid-discharge energy storage device 120 stores energy provided to it from defibrillation voltage generator 160 to build up a charge voltage 122.”).
Mulhauser’s “Rapid-discharge energy storage device 120 … is implemented … by capacitor 410” (see Mulhauser at Col. 11, Ln. 21-22). Mulhauser’s “capacitor 410” is thus “configured to store and release energy for the electrotherapy.”
This interpretation is confirmed by Mulhauser at Col. 10, Ln. 13-26 (“Typically device 120 is any of a variety of known energy storage devices for use in a defibrillator, such as a film capacitor…. In one of many other illustrative examples …, device 120 may include a number of aluminum electrolytic photo flash capacitors arranged in series. It is not material to the present invention which of many known devices, or others to be developed in the future, are used, provided that device 120 is capable of storing, and rapidly discharging, a charge appropriate for defibrillation.”).
one or more switches configured for adjusting an electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient; (Fig. 4, “buck switch 415,” “switches 470, 472, 474, and 476;” Col. 13, Ln. 18-19, “…buck switch 415 … acts as a switch;” Col. 11, Ln. 31-33; See “Annotated Figs. 2 and 4,” below);
Mulhauser’s “buck switch 415” is “configured for adjusting an electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient” because it modulates pulse width via its open/closed states (see Mulhauser at Col. 13, Ln. 19-23, “…when control signal 520 is in a high state, such as voltage 521 of FIG. 5 (for example, five volts), buck switch 415 is closed. When buck control signal 520 is in a low state, such as voltage 522, buck switch 415 is open. The resulting pulse-width modulation…”).
Mulhauser’s “switches 470, 472, 474, and 476” are “configured for adjusting an electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient” in that they implement biphasic conversion (Mulhauser at Col. 11, Ln. 31-33, “Biphasic converter 130 is implemented by the H-bridge made up of switches 470, 472, 474, and 476.”).
a boost converter circuit coupled with the capacitor, the boost converter circuit comprising at least one inductor configured to store energy provided by the capacitor; (Fig. 2, “step-up converter 220A;” Fig. 4, “boost transistor 440,” “boost diode 450,” “inductor 430,” and “capacitor 460;” Col. 11, Ln. 24-27, “Step-up converter 220A is implemented by boost transistor (hereafter, boost switch) 440, boost diode 450, inductor 430, and capacitor 460;” Col. 15, Ln. 30-31; See “Annotated Figs. 2 and 4,” below);
Mulhauser’s “step-up converter 220A” is such a “boost converter circuit” as claimed because the terms “step-up converter” and “boost converter” are synonymous. See Wikipedia at Pg. 1, First Paragraph (“A boost converter or step-up converter is a DC-to-DC converter that increases voltage, while decreasing current, from its input (supply) to its output (load).”); see also StackExchange at Pg. 2 of 3, Last Paragraph (“A step-up converter is a type of DC-DC converter and is the same as a boost converter. They are called this because they step-up/boost the voltage from the source to the output.”).
Mulhauser’s “step-up converter 220A” is “coupled with” Mulhauser’s “capacitor 410” (See “Annotated Figs. 2 and 4,” below; see also Mulhauser at Col. 10, Ln. 53-65, describing the path of Mulhauser’s “charge voltage 122”).
Mulhauser’s “inductor 430” is “configured to store energy provided by” Mulhauser’s “capacitor 410” by virtue of its function (see Mulhauser at Col. 15, Ln. 30-31, “This amplification occurs because energy is stored in inductor 430 when boost switch 440 is closed…”).
a current sensing circuit coupled to the at least one inductor and configured to sense electrical signals indicative of a current being delivered to the patient; (Col. 14, Ln. 20-23, “Similarly, a current sensor could be positioned at locations such as point 401 (to measure current flowing through inductor 430)…;” See “Annotated Figs. 2 and 4,” below);
Mulhauser’s “current flowing through inductor 430” is “indicative of a current being delivered to the patient” in that it is a current whose transformations via Mulhauser’s circuit is delivered to the patient.
and a controller circuit coupled with the current sensing circuit, the controller circuit configured to control the one or more switches in adjusting the electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient. (Figs. 2 and 4, “controller 115;” Col. 13, Ln. 56-61, “…controller 115 adjusts the widths of the pulses of control signal 520 … to control the current flowing through inductor 430 ….;” Col. 14, Ln. 14-22, “…controller 115 selectively turns buck switch 415 off and on based in part on the indicator of patient impedance, which may be measured by measuring current flow (or voltage levels) at various places in amplifier 125A. … a current sensor could be positioned at locations such as point 401 (to measure current flowing through inductor 430)…;” See “Annotated Figs. 2 and 4,” below);
PNG
media_image1.png
694
1305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the electrotherapy waveform comprises at least one of: a current waveform, a voltage waveform and a power waveform (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40, “…the discharge capability is such that a voltage or current waveform may be generated that delivers energy over a time period suitable for defibrillation of a human heart.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more switches are coupled between the at least one inductor and the current sensing circuit. (Col. 14, Ln. 20-24, “Similarly, a current sensor could be positioned at locations such as point 401 (to measure current flowing through inductor 430), point 403 (to measure the output current), at any switch or diode branch, or at any other circuit branch.”).
Mulhauser’s embodiment wherein Mulhauser’s “current sensor” is positioned at “point 403” rather than “point 401” results in Mulhauser’s “current sensing circuit” being “coupled between” Mulhauser’s “inductor 430” and “switch 470.”
Regarding Claim 9, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein current flowing through the one or more switches is measured by the current sensing circuit (Col. 14, Ln. 20-24)
Mulhauser’s embodiment wherein Mulhauser’s “current sensor” is positioned at “point 403” rather than “point 401” results in Mulhauser’s “current sensing circuit” measuring “output current,” which output current flows through Mulhauser’s “switch 470” ahead of biphasic conversion.
Regarding Claim 10, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
comprising at least one polarity control circuit (Col. 16, Ln. 54 through Col. 17, Ln. 27; Figs. 9, 10 and 11)
Mulhauser describes several embodiments of Mulhauser’s “switch-mode amplifier 125” with reference to Mulhauser’s circuitry depicted in Figs. 7-12. The embodiments of Mulhauser’s Figs. 9, 10 and 11 invert polarity. As such, Mulhauser’s “switch-mode amplifier 125” “compris[es] at least one polarity control circuit” in the embodiments of Mulhauser’s Figs. 9, 10 and 11.
The Examiner notes that the embodiment of Mulhauser’s Fig. 10 is “a conventional push-pull cuk-type implementation,” which switches polarity by virtue of being “cuk-type.” See “Cuk Converter NPL” at Pg. 1, First Paragraph (“…in cuk converter output voltage polarity is opposite to that of input voltage polarity.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one polarity control circuit comprises a plurality of switches (Col. 16, Ln. 54 through Col. 17, Ln. 27; Fig. 10)
The embodiment of Mulhauser’s Fig. 10 is “a conventional push-pull cuk-type implementation,” which switches polarity by virtue of being “cuk-type.” See “Cuk Converter NPL” at Pg. 1, First Paragraph (“…in cuk converter output voltage polarity is opposite to that of input voltage polarity.”). As can be seen in Mulhauser’s Fig. 10, the embodiment of Mulhauser’s Fig. 10 “comprises a plurality of switches” (Fig. 10 shows 4 switches).
Regarding Claim 12, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one polarity control circuit comprises an H-bridge. (Fig. 6; Col. 16, Ln. 24-18, “As in the case of amplifier 125A, an H-bridge, consisting of switches 670, 672, 674, and 676, is also provided for biphasic conversion. Patient isolation relay 140 is implemented by switches 682 and 684.”).
In the embodiment of Mulhauser’s Fig. 6, “amplifier 125A” is an H-bridge, and controls polarity in that is performs biphasic conversion.
The Examiner notes that Mulhauser’s embodiment of Fig. 6 is the same of that as Fig. 4, with the exception that the embodiment of Fig. 6 employs two separate inductors and two separate capacitors in place of the single inductor and single capacitor of Fig. 4. See Mulhauser at Col. 16, Ln. 5-16.
Regarding Claim 13, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one polarity control circuit is configured to apply the electrotherapy waveform to the patient. (Fig. 6; Col. 16, Ln. 24-18, “As in the case of amplifier 125A, an H-bridge, consisting of switches 670, 672, 674, and 676, is also provided for biphasic conversion. Patient isolation relay 140 is implemented by switches 682 and 684.”).
In the embodiment of Mulhauser’s Fig. 6, “amplifier 125A” controls polarity in that is performs biphasic conversion, and includes “switches 682 and 684” which implement “patient isolation relay.” Such implementation of patient isolation relay renders “amplifier 125A” “configured to apply the electrotherapy waveform to the patient.”
Regarding Claim 14, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the boost converter circuit is configured to increase a voltage of the electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient in response to a drop in the voltage. (Col. 10, Ln. 58-65, “Step-up converter 220A receives step-down voltage 212A and selectively amplifies it to generate amplified voltage 222A. This selective amplification is accomplished in response to a control signal from controller 115 over control-signal line 204. Output energy storage device 230A receives amplified voltage 222A and filters it to provide output voltage 232A, which is provided to biphasic converter 130.”).
Mulhauser’s “Step-up converter 220A receives step-down voltage 212A and selectively amplifies it to generate amplified voltage 222A,” which amplified voltage is later transferred to the patient post-biphasic converter interaction. Such amplifying received step-down voltage is “increas[ing] a voltage of the electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient in response to a drop in the voltage” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the boost converter circuit is configured to increase a voltage of the electrotherapy waveform being delivered to the patient in adjusting the therapeutic waveform being delivered to the patient (Col. 10, Ln. 58-65, “Step-up converter 220A receives step-down voltage 212A and selectively amplifies it to generate amplified voltage 222A. This selective amplification is accomplished in response to a control signal from controller 115 over control-signal line 204. Output energy storage device 230A receives amplified voltage 222A and filters it to provide output voltage 232A, which is provided to biphasic converter 130.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally discloses:
wherein the controller circuit comprises a PWM controller. (Abstract, “ The controller generates at least one control signal, which may be pulse-width modulated.”).
The term “PWM controller” is being interpreted to mean a pulse-width modulated controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,208,896 B1 to Mulhauser et al. (“Mulhauser”) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2012/0130224 A1 to Consiglio et al. (“Consiglio”) as evidenced by M. Ellis, "Inductors, Air Core Inductors and Baluns," accessed online 8/10/2026 via https://blog.knowlescapacitors.com/blog/inductors-air-core-inductors-and-baluns; Posted March 13, 2024 (“Ellis”) and M. Bartoli, A. Reatti and M. K. Kazimierczuk, "Minimum copper and core losses power inductor design," IAS '96. Conference Record of the 1996 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Thirty-First IAS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 1996, pp. 1369-1376 vol.3 (“Bartoli”).
Regarding Claim 4, Mulhauser discloses the entirety of Claim 2 as explained above.
Mulhauser does not disclose:
wherein the at least one inductor comprises an unsaturable air-core inductor
Consiglio describes “A cardiac defibrillator” and its associated circuitry (Abstract). Consiglio is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
Consiglio teaches:
wherein the at least one inductor comprises an unsaturable air-core inductor (Para. [0032], “Yet another driver topology mentioned as a further example but not illustrated is a single MOSFET driver topology, again preferably employing only air core inductors to avoid inclusion of magnetic material in the driver circuit.”).
All air core inductors are unsaturable because air does not saturate. See Ellis at Pg. 2 of 4, Last Paragraph, Second Bullet Point.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Mulhauser with the teachings of Consiglio (i.e., to use such an unsaturable air-core inductor as taught by Consiglio as the inductor of Mulhauser) in order to “avoid inclusion of magnetic material” in the circuit component (Consiglio at Para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Mulhauser with the teachings of Consiglio (i.e., to use such an unsaturable air-core inductor as taught by Consiglio as the inductor of Mulhauser) because such a modification entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The prior art contained a device (i.e., the device of Mulhauser) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (i.e., an unspecified inductor) with other components (i.e., an unsaturable air-core inductor).
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. For example, Consiglio teaches such an unsaturable air-core inductor at Para. [0032].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
The combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio does not disclose:
wherein the at least one inductor comprises a 1 mH inductor
However, because Applicant fails to disclose that the claimed inductance of 1 mH provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from any other inductance value, and the prior art discloses that inductance value is a routine design consideration absent unexpected results (see, e.g., Bartoli at Pg. 1369, Right Column, Last Paragraph through Pg. 1370, Left Column, Second Paragraph), it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable inductance of 1 mH by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
The specification discloses the inductance of 1 mH that applies to the claimed invention at Para. [0036]. However, the specification does not disclose that the specifically claimed inductance of 1 mH is for any particular purpose or to solve any stated problem that distinguishes it from any other inductance value. The specification therefore lacks disclosure of the criticality required by the Courts in providing patentability.
In addition to a lack of disclosed criticality in the specification, an obviousness rejection based upon optimization must rely on prior art that discloses the optimized parameter is a result-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05. Since Bartoli at Pg. 1369, Right Column, Last Paragraph through Pg. 1370, Left Column, Second Paragraph teaches that inductance value is a routine design consideration, the prior art therefore provides teaching that the inductance of 1 mH is a variable that achieves a recognized result, and satisfies the above requirement of a result-effective variable in order to set forth an obviousness rejection based on optimization.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
The combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio does not disclose:
wherein the at least one inductor comprises dimensions for optimization of self inductance
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of combined Mulhauser and Consiglio such that the at least one inductor comprises dimensions for optimization of self inductance because such a modification entails a mere change in size/proportion, which is a common practice the court has held normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. See MPEP2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally teaches:
wherein the boost converter circuit is configured to release energy from the capacitor at a substantially constant current. (Abstract, “A step-up followed by step-down topology provides a constant-current source that may produce a particularly efficacious electrotherapeutic effect.”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally teaches:
wherein the electrotherapy waveform is biphasic. (Col. 7, Ln. 20-24, “…the waveform definer may specify to the controller that the waveform is to consist of a positive, rectilinear pulse followed by a negative, rectilinear pulse, and further specify the durations of each pulse and of the total waveform.”).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally teaches:
wherein the electrotherapy waveform is a rectilinear biphasic waveform. (Col. 7, Ln. 20-24, “…the waveform definer may specify to the controller that the waveform is to consist of a positive, rectilinear pulse followed by a negative, rectilinear pulse, and further specify the durations of each pulse and of the total waveform.”)
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Mulhauser additionally teaches:
wherein the electrotherapy waveform comprises a defibrillation waveform. (Abstract, “A method and apparatus for providing variable defibrillation waveforms using switch-mode amplification are provided.”).
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,208,896 B1 to Mulhauser et al. (“Mulhauser”) in view of US 2012/0130224 A1 to Consiglio et al. (“Consiglio”) as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2001/0031906 A1 to Ishikawa et al. (“Ishikawa”) as evidenced by M. Bartoli, A. Reatti and M. K. Kazimierczuk, "Minimum copper and core losses power inductor design," IAS '96. Conference Record of the 1996 IEEE Industry Applications Conference Thirty-First IAS Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 1996, pp. 1369-1376 vol.3 (“Bartoli”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Consiglio additionally teaches:
wherein the at least one inductor comprises a … air-core coil (Para. [0032], “Yet another driver topology mentioned as a further example but not illustrated is a single MOSFET driver topology, again preferably employing only air core inductors to avoid inclusion of magnetic material in the driver circuit.”)
The combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio does not disclose:
a Litz wire
That is, Consiglio teaches “wherein the at least one inductor comprises an air-core coil,” but does not teach “wherein the air-core coil is a Litz wire air-coil.” Consiglio is silent with regard to the claimed material “a Litz wire.”
Ishikawa describes “A method for magnetically stimulating biological body to make treatment or diagnosis…” (Abstract). Ishikawa is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
Ishikawa teaches:
a Litz wire (Abstract, “…a litz wire coil is used to produce the time-varying magnetic field…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Mulhauser and Consiglio (i.e., to use Litz wire to construct the inductor of combined Mulhauser and Consiglio) because such a modification entails simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
The prior art contained a device (i.e., the device of combined Mulhauser and Consliglio) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (i.e., an inductor made from an unspecified material) with other components (i.e., an inductor made from Litz wire).
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. For example, Ishikawa teaches such Litz wire at its Abstract, and Bartoli teaches such Litz wire at Abstract (“Both solid round wire and Litz wire winding are considered.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 21 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,208,896 B1 to Mulhauser et al. (“Mulhauser”) in view of US 2012/0130224 A1 to Consiglio et al. (“Consiglio”) as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of US 5,443,490 A to Flugstad (“Flugstad”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
The combination of Mulhauser and Consiglio does not disclose:
wherein the electrotherapy waveform comprises a pacing
Flugstad describes “A defibrillator patient circuit…” (Abstract). Flugstad is analogous art.
Flugstad teaches:
wherein the electrotherapy waveform comprises a pacing (Col. 1, Ln. 18-21, “A defibrillator may have a "pacing" circuit that periodically provides small current pulses to the patient's heart. The pacing circuit uses the same defibrillation contacts as are used for defibrillation.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of combined Mulhauser and Consiglio with the teachings of Flugstad (i.e., to modify the device of Mulhauser such that it is additionally capable of providing a pacing waveform) in order to “periodically provide[] small current pulses to the patient's heart …us[ing] the same … contacts as are used for defibrillation” (Flugstad at Col. 1, Ln. 18-21).
Art Made of Record Although Not Relied Upon in Any Rejection
The Examiner notes the following prior art, which is deemed relevant and thus made of record although not relied upon in any foregoing rejection:
US 2012/0179218 A1 describes “DEFIBRILLATOR HAVING SPECIALIZED OUTPUT WAVEFORMS” (Title) and discloses a similar circuit to that of Claim 2 at Figs. 2 and 4.
US 2010/0228305 A1 describes an “Energy Efficient Defibrillation Current Limiter” (Title) and discloses a similar circuit to that of Claim 2 at Fig. 7.
US 2010/0274301 A1 describes “Inductive Power Switching With Digital Control For Active Implantable Devices” and discloses a similar circuit to that of Claim 2 at Fig. 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
1 US 6,208,896 B1 was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 5/27/2025.
Prosecution Insights