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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “the first stimulator”; There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the second stimulator”; There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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)1-5, 8-9, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080103547 to Okun et al. (hereinafter “Okun” – on IDS).
Regarding claim 1. (Original) Okun discloses a deep brain stimulation device, comprising: a first stimulation electrode configured to be located at a first location of a deep brain nucleus; a second stimulation electrode configured to be located at a second location of the deep brain nucleus (para 0018); and a stimulator supplying currents to the first stimulation electrode and the second stimulation electrode, wherein the stimulator is controlled so as not to supply the currents to the first stimulation electrode and the second stimulation electrode simultaneously (para 0052), and the first location and the second location are respectively located on a left side and a right side with respect to a center of a brain (para 0018, 0032, 0052).
Regarding claim 2. (Original) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 1, wherein the stimulator is controlled to supply the current to only any one of the first and second stimulation electrodes (para 0023, 0052, claim 12).
Regarding claim 3. (Original) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 1, wherein the stimulator is controlled to alternately supply the currents to each of the first and second stimulation electrodes (para 0023, 0052 “current can be applied alternately to electrical leads”).
Regarding claim 4. (Original) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 1, wherein the stimulator performs a current supply method comprising: not supplying the current to the second stimulation electrode when supplying the current to the first stimulation electrode during a first current supply time (para 0023, 0052); and not supplying the current to the first stimulation electrode and supplying the current to the second stimulation electrode during a second current supply time, when the first current supply time has elapsed (para 0052 “electrical current is applied alternately to at least two electrical leads [] Electrical current can be applied either intermittently”).
Regarding claim 5. (Original) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 4, wherein the current supply method further comprises: allowing the stimulator to have a predetermined rest time before supplying the current to the second stimulation electrode, after supplying the current to the first stimulation electrode, wherein during the predetermined rest time, no current is supplied to both the first stimulation electrode and the second stimulation electrode (para 0052 “intermittently”).
Regarding claim 8. (Original) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 1, wherein the current supplied to the first stimulation electrode and the current supplied to the second stimulation electrode have the same magnitude (para 0035, 0048, 0052, varying the DBS stimulation protocol to optimize the result; table 2B. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 9. (Currently Amended) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 4, wherein the first current supply time and the second current supply time are the same as each other (para 0035, 0048, 0052, varying the DBS stimulation protocol to optimize the result; table 2B. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 11. (Original) Okun discloses a control method of a deep brain stimulation device, comprising: controlling currents to be supplied to each of a pair of stimulation electrodes configured to be located at predetermined locations of a deep brain nucleus (para 0032, 0052), wherein the currents are controlled not to be supplied to each of stimulation electrodes constituting the pair of stimulation electrodes simultaneously (para 0052), and each of stimulation electrodes constituting the pair of stimulation electrodes is respectively located on a left side and a right side with respect to a center of a brain (para 0018, 0032, 0052).
Regarding claim 12. (Original) The control method of claim 11, wherein the current is controlled to be supplied to only any one of the stimulation electrodes constituting the pair of stimulation electrodes (para 0023, 0052, claim 12).
Regarding claim 13. (Original) The control method of claim 11, wherein the currents are controlled to be alternately supplied to each of the pair of stimulation electrodes (para 0023, 0052 “current can be applied alternately to electrical leads”).
Regarding claim 14. (Original) Okun discloses the control method of claim 11, further comprising: supplying the current to a first stimulation electrode located at a first location of the deep brain nucleus during a first current supply time; and supplying the current to a second stimulation electrode located at a second location of the deep brain nucleus during a second current supply time, after the first current supply time, wherein the current is controlled so as not to be supplied to the second stimulation electrode while the current is supplied to the first stimulation electrode, and the current is controlled so as not to be supplied to the first stimulation electrode while the current is supplied to the second stimulation electrode (para 0052 “electrical current is applied alternately to at least two electrical leads [] Electrical current can be applied either intermittently”).
Regarding claim 15. (Original) Okun discloses the control method of claim 14, wherein the current supplied to the first stimulation electrode and the current supplied to the second stimulation electrode have the same magnitude (para 0035, 0048, 0052, varying the DBS stimulation protocol to optimize the result; table 2B. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 16. (Original) Okun discloses the control method of claim 14, wherein the first current supply time and the second current supply time are the same as each other (para 0035, 0048, 0052, varying the DBS stimulation protocol to optimize the result; table 2B. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Claim(s) 6-7, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okun as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20080208287 A1 to Palermo et al. (hereinafter “Palermo”).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 1, wherein the [] stimulator are controlled so as not to supply the currents to the first stimulation electrode and the second stimulation electrode simultaneously (para 0023, 0052) but fails to disclose wherein the stimulator comprises: a first stimulator connected to the first stimulation electrode and supplying the current to the first stimulation electrode; and a second stimulator connected to the second stimulation electrode and supplying the current to the second stimulation electrode.
Palermo, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the stimulation device to include [two] output connectors 14, 16 connected to a plurality of output cables and associated electrode pairs 18a-b (para 0018-0019, 0095, 0144, 0145 figs 1A,2A, 2C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Okun with the teachings of Palermo to provide the predictable result of providing connectors to provide stimulation to each electrode.
It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding the first and second stimulators. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any component connected to the electrodes that provide stimulation would read over the claimed limitation as currently presented.
Regarding claim 7. (Original) Okun as modified by Palermo renders obvious the deep brain stimulation device of claim 6, wherein a current supply method is performed, the method comprising: the second stimulator not supplying the current to the second stimulation electrode when the first stimulator supplies the current to the first stimulation electrode during a first current supply time (para 0023, 0052, and Palermo, para 0018-0019, 0095, 0144, 0145); and the first stimulator not supplying the current to the first stimulation electrode and the second stimulator supplying the current to the second stimulation electrode during a second current supply time, when the first current supply time has elapsed time (para 0023, 0052).
Regarding claim 10. (Currently Amended) Okun discloses the deep brain stimulation device of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the deep brain stimulation device allows the second stimulator to supply the current to the second stimulation electrode during the second current supply time after a predetermined rest time, after the first stimulator supplies the current to the first stimulation electrode during the first current supply time.
Palermo, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the stimulation device to provide stimulation to the electrode pairs with a delay (para 0018-0019, 0095, 0105-0106, etc. 0144, 0145 figs 1A,2A, 2C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Okun with the teachings of Palermo to provide the predictable result of providing the desired stimulation.
Regarding claim 17. (Original) The control method of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein after the current is supplied to the first stimulation electrode, the current is supplied to the second stimulation electrode, when a predetermined rest time has elapsed.
Palermo, from a similar field of endeavor teaches the stimulation device to provide stimulation to the electrode pairs with a delay (para 0018-0019, 0095, 0105-0106, etc. 0144, 0145 figs 1A,2A, 2C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Okun with the teachings of Palermo to provide the predictable result of providing the desired stimulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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 S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights