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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 20130338526) in view of Bendett et al., (US 8632577; hereinafter Bendett), Melosh et al., (US 20160128588; hereinafter Melosh), Osorio, (US 20120265262), and Ghaffari et al., (US 20100298895; hereinafter Ghaffari).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses a method (Figures 1-3) for deep mind analysis comprising: receiving electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue from at least one read modality (sensors); encoding the received electrical signals using a Fundamental Code Unit ([0028]); automatically generating at least one machine learning model using the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals; generating at least one optical or electrical signal to be transmitted to the brain tissue using the generated at least one machine learning model; and transmitting the generated at least one optical or electrical signal to the brain tissue to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue using at least one write modality ([0011], [0013], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Howard fails to disclose that the read modality comprises an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, wherein the steps above are performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals. However, Bendett teaches a method for deep mind/brain analysis (Col. 7, lines 3-8) using a read modality comprising an implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58; Col. 7, lines 3-8), the implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58, Col. 13, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the read modality comprising an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, as taught by Bendett, because Howard discloses that a variety of communication pathways may be used in the method ([0013], [0104]). Therefore, the combination of the electrode/sensor disclosed by Howard and the transmission element/optical fiber taught by Howard provides a modality for communication within the device as required by the claim. Furthermore, in the modified method, the steps of the primary method disclosed by Howard would be performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals, so the fibers would be adapted to receive optical/electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue and to transmit optical/electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Howard/Bendett fails to teach that the plurality of fibers comprise carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals. However, Melosh teaches a neural-interface sensor device including a plurality of fibers (208) comprising carbon nanotubes [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett to include the plurality of fibers comprising carbon nanotubes, as taught by Melosh, because the modification would decrease the interfacial electrical impedance between the exposed conductor material and brain tissue, thereby enabling more sensitive neural-activity recording (Melosh; [0049]). Furthermore, since the modified method taught by Howard/Bendett would be configured for receiving both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, the carbon nanotubes of the further modified method taught by Howard/Bendett/Melosh would also be configured to receive both electrical signals and optical signals when incorporated into the modified method.
Howard/Bendett/Melosh fails to teach that the fibers of the implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to record signals from pyramidal layers III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein at least one sensor (282) of an implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to receive electrical signals from pyramidal layer III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region ([0072], [0082]-[0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett/Melosh such that the implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to record signals from pyramidal layers III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region, as taught by Osorio, because the modification would provide specific neural signal measurement with a desired brain cortical structure as desired for treatment (Osorio; [0072]). Furthermore, since pyramidal layers III to VI are just specific layers within the general pyramidal layers of a brain cortex region taught by Osorio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device (specifically at least some sensors of the array of sensors) to receive neural signals from pyramidal layers III to VI of a brain cortex region.
Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio fails to teach the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid. However, Ghaffari teaches a method using an implant device (200), which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid ([0079], [0188]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio to include the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, as taught by Ghaffari, since applicant has not disclosed that having the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 3, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) receiving additional data from at least one additional read modality selected from a group comprising: an electroencephalogram, local field potential measurements, event-related potential measurements, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, cyclic voltammetry, linguistic axiological input/output analysis, motion tracking, and behavior tracking; and generating the at least one machine learning model using the additional data along with the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals ([0011], [0013], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 4, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari teaches the method of claim 1, but Howard/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari fails to teach that the write modality comprises an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue. However, Bendett teaches a method for deep mind/brain analysis (Col. 7, lines 3-8) using a write modality comprising an implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58; Col. 7, lines 3-8), the implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58, Col. 13, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari to include the write modality comprising an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue, as taught by Bendett, because joining together delicate microelectrodes with optical fibers, which have a certain inherent stiffness, permits the optical-electrical probe fiber assembly to be inserted to remotely located areas (Bendett; Col. 10, lines 45-58). Furthermore, in the modified method, the steps of the primary method disclosed by Howard would be performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals, so the fibers would be adapted to receive optical/electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue and to transmit optical/electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Regarding claim 5, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) generating additional signals to be transmitted from at least one additional write modality selected from a group comprising: ultrasound, audio/visual stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, enzymatic controllers, and electrochemical neural manipulation; and transmitting the generated additional signals to the brain tissue to provide stimulation of the brain tissue ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari further teaches that the read modality and the write modality comprise an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive electrical and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue and to transmit electrical and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue (as explained in the rejections of claims 1 and 4 above).
Regarding claim 7, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) receiving additional data from at least one additional read modality selected from a group comprising: an electroencephalogram, local field potential measurements, event-related potential measurements, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, cyclic voltammetry, linguistic axiological input/output analysis, motion tracking, and behavior tracking; generating the at least one machine learning model using the additional data along with the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals; generating additional signals to be transmitted from at least one additional write modality selected from a group comprising: ultrasound, audio/visual stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, enzymatic controllers, and electrochemical neural manipulation; and transmitting the generated additional signals to the brain tissue to provide stimulation of the brain tissue ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 8, Howard discloses (Figures 1-3) a system for deep mind analysis comprising: at least one read modality (sensors) adapted to receive electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue; at least one write modality (effectors) adapted to transmit the generated at least one electrical signal to the brain tissue to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue; and at least one computing device comprising a processor (Interface 1), memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform: encoding the received electrical signals using a Fundamental Code Unit ([0028]); automatically generating at least one machine learning model using the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical signals; and generating at least one electrical signal to be transmitted to the brain tissue using the generated at least one machine learning model ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Howard fails to disclose that the read modality comprises an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, wherein the steps above are performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals. However, Bendett teaches a method for deep mind/brain analysis (Col. 7, lines 3-8) using a read modality comprising an implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58; Col. 7, lines 3-8), the implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58, Col. 13, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the read modality comprising an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, as taught by Bendett, because Howard discloses that a variety of communication pathways may be used in the method ([0013], [0104]). Therefore, the combination of the electrode/sensor disclosed by Howard and the transmission element/optical fiber taught by Howard provides a modality for communication within the device as required by the claim. Furthermore, in the modified system, the steps of the primary method disclosed by Howard would be performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals, so the fibers would be adapted to receive optical/electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue and to transmit optical/electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Howard/Bendett fails to teach that the plurality of fibers comprise carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals. However, Melosh teaches a neural-interface sensor device including a plurality of fibers (208) comprising carbon nanotubes [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett to include the plurality of fibers comprising carbon nanotubes, as taught by Melosh, because the modification would decrease the interfacial electrical impedance between the exposed conductor material and brain tissue, thereby enabling more sensitive neural-activity recording (Melosh; [0049]). Furthermore, since the modified system taught by Howard/Bendett would be configured for receiving both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, the carbon nanotubes of the further modified system taught by Howard/Bendett/Melosh would also be configured to receive both electrical signals and optical signals when incorporated into the modified system.
Howard/Bendett/Melosh fails to teach that the fibers of the implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to record signals from pyramidal layers III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein at least one sensor (282) of an implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to receive electrical signals from pyramidal layer III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region ([0072], [0082]-[0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett/Melosh such that the implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to record signals from pyramidal layers III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region, as taught by Osorio, because the modification would provide specific neural signal measurement with a desired brain cortical structure as desired for treatment (Osorio; [0072]). Furthermore, since pyramidal layers III to VI are just specific layers within the general pyramidal layers of a brain cortex region taught by Osorio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device (specifically at least some sensors of the array of sensors) to receive neural signals from pyramidal layers III to VI of a brain cortex region.
Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio fails to teach the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid. However, Ghaffari teaches an implant device (200), which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid ([0079], [0188]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio to include the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, as taught by Ghaffari, since applicant has not disclosed that having the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) program instructions to cause the processor to perform: receiving additional data from at least one additional read modality selected from a group comprising: an electroencephalogram, local field potential measurements, event-related potential measurements, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, cyclic voltammetry, linguistic axiological input/output analysis, motion tracking, and behavior tracking; and generating the at least one machine learning model using the additional data along with the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 11, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari teaches the system of claim 8, but Howard/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari fails to teach that the write modality comprises an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue. However, Bendett teaches a method for deep mind/brain analysis (Col. 7, lines 3-8) using a write modality comprising an implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58; Col. 7, lines 3-8), the implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58, Col. 13, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari to include the write modality comprising an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue, as taught by Bendett, because joining together delicate microelectrodes with optical fibers, which have a certain inherent stiffness, permits the optical-electrical probe fiber assembly to be inserted to remotely located areas (Bendett; Col. 10, lines 45-58). Furthermore, in the modified system, the steps of the primary method disclosed by Howard would be performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals, so the fibers would be adapted to receive optical/electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue and to transmit optical/electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Regarding claim 12, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) program instructions to cause the processor to perform: generating additional signals to be transmitted from at least one additional write modality selected from a group comprising: ultrasound, audio/visual stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, enzymatic controllers, and electrochemical neural manipulation; and transmitting the generated additional signals to the brain tissue to provide stimulation of the brain tissue ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 13, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari further teaches that the read modality and the write modality comprise an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive electrical and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue and to transmit electrical and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue (as explained in the rejections of claims 8 and 11 above).
Regarding claim 14, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) program instructions to cause the processor to perform: receiving additional data from at least one additional read modality selected from a group comprising: an electroencephalogram, local field potential measurements, event-related potential measurements, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, cyclic voltammetry, linguistic axiological input/output analysis, motion tracking, and behavior tracking; generating the at least one machine learning model using the additional data along with the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals; generating additional signals to be transmitted from at least one additional write modality selected from a group comprising: ultrasound, audio/visual stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, enzymatic controllers, and electrochemical neural manipulation; and transmitting the generated additional signals to the brain tissue to provide stimulation of the brain tissue ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 15, Howard discloses (Figures 1-3) a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer system (Interfaces and analyzer), to cause the computer system to perform a method of deep mind analysis comprising: receiving electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue from at least one read modality (sensors); encoding the received electrical signals using a Fundamental Code Unit ([0028]); automatically generating at least one machine learning model using the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical signals; generating at least one electrical signal to be transmitted to the brain tissue using the generated at least one machine learning model; and transmitting the generated at least one electrical signal to the brain tissue to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue using at least one write modality (effectors), ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Howard fails to disclose that the read modality comprises an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, wherein the steps above are performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals. However, Bendett teaches a method for deep mind/brain analysis (Col. 7, lines 3-8) using a read modality comprising an implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58; Col. 7, lines 3-8), the implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58, Col. 13, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the read modality comprising an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, as taught by Bendett, because Howard discloses that a variety of communication pathways may be used in the method ([0013], [0104]). Therefore, the combination of the electrode/sensor disclosed by Howard and the transmission element/optical fiber taught by Howard provides a modality for communication within the device as required by the claim. Furthermore, in the modified product, the steps of the primary method disclosed by Howard would be performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals, so the fibers would be adapted to receive optical/electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue and to transmit optical/electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Howard/Bendett fails to teach that the plurality of fibers comprise carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are adapted to receive both electrical signals and optical signals. However, Melosh teaches a neural-interface sensor device including a plurality of fibers (208) comprising carbon nanotubes [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett to include the plurality of fibers comprising carbon nanotubes, as taught by Melosh, because the modification would decrease the interfacial electrical impedance between the exposed conductor material and brain tissue, thereby enabling more sensitive neural-activity recording (Melosh; [0049]). Furthermore, since the modified device taught by Howard/Bendett would be configured for receiving both electrical signals and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, the carbon nanotubes of the further modified device taught by Howard/Bendett/Melosh would also be configured to receive both electrical signals and optical signals when incorporated into the modified device.
Howard/Bendett/Melosh fails to teach that the fibers of the implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to record signals from pyramidal layers III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein at least one sensor (282) of an implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to receive electrical signals from pyramidal layer III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region ([0072], [0082]-[0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett/Melosh such that the implant device is attached to neurons and adapted to record signals from pyramidal layers III down to layer VI of a brain cortex region, as taught by Osorio, because the modification would provide specific neural signal measurement with a desired brain cortical structure as desired for treatment (Osorio; [0072]). Furthermore, since pyramidal layers III to VI are just specific layers within the general pyramidal layers of a brain cortex region taught by Osorio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device (specifically at least some sensors of the array of sensors) to receive neural signals from pyramidal layers III to VI of a brain cortex region.
Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio fails to teach the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid. However, Ghaffari teaches an implant device (200), which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid ([0079], [0188]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio to include the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, as taught by Ghaffari, since applicant has not disclosed that having the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 17, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) receiving additional data from at least one additional read modality selected from a group comprising: an electroencephalogram, local field potential measurements, event-related potential measurements, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, cyclic voltammetry, linguistic axiological input/output analysis, motion tracking, and behavior tracking; and generating the at least one machine learning model using the additional data along with the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 18, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari teaches the computer program product of claim 15, but Howard/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari fails to teach that the write modality comprises an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue. However, Bendett teaches a method for deep mind/brain analysis (Col. 7, lines 3-8) using a write modality comprising an implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58; Col. 7, lines 3-8), the implant device (optical-electrical slab/fiber assembly) comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue (Col. 6, lines 18-58, Col. 13, lines 14-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari to include the write modality comprising an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with brain tissue, the fibers adapted to transmit both electrical signals and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue, as taught by Bendett, because joining together delicate microelectrodes with optical fibers, which have a certain inherent stiffness, permits the optical-electrical probe fiber assembly to be inserted to remotely located areas (Bendett; Col. 10, lines 45-58). Furthermore, in the modified product, the steps of the primary method disclosed by Howard would be performed with optical signals in addition to the electrical signals, so the fibers would be adapted to receive optical/electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of brain tissue and to transmit optical/electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Regarding claim 19, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) generating additional signals to be transmitted from at least one additional write modality selected from a group comprising: ultrasound, audio/visual stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, enzymatic controllers, and electrochemical neural manipulation; and transmitting the generated additional signals to the brain tissue to provide stimulation of the brain tissue ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 20, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari further teaches that the read modality and the write modality comprise an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue, the implant device comprising a plurality of fibers in contact with the brain tissue, the fibers adapted to receive electrical and optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue and to transmit electrical and optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue (as explained in the rejections of claims 15 and 18 above).
Regarding claim 21, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) receiving additional data from at least one additional read modality selected from a group comprising: an electroencephalogram, local field potential measurements, event-related potential measurements, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, cyclic voltammetry, linguistic axiological input/output analysis, motion tracking, and behavior tracking; generating the at least one machine learning model using the additional data along with the Fundamental Code Unit encoded electrical and optical signals; generating additional signals to be transmitted from at least one additional write modality selected from a group comprising: ultrasound, audio/visual stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, enzymatic controllers, and electrochemical neural manipulation; and transmitting the generated additional signals to the brain tissue to provide stimulation of the brain tissue ([0011], [0013]-[0014], [0028], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 22, Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio/Ghaffari further teaches wherein the plurality of fibers are coated with the carbon nanotubes. Specifically, the modified method includes the plurality of fibers coated with the carbon nanotubes, as taught by Melosh ([0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/20/2026, regarding the newly amended claim limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference Ghaffari, which teaches a implant device, which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid. In combination with Howard/Bendett/Melosh/Osorio, the modified device teaches the invention as claimed at least in amended claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794