DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde (US 20130046358) in view of Llinas (US 20040133118), Kaplan et al., (US 20150202351; hereinafter Kaplan), Cain et al., (US 20060094974; hereinafter Cain), and Ghaffari et al., (US 20100298895; hereinafter Ghaffari).
Regarding claims 1-2, Leyde discloses (Figures 2 and 6-7) a system comprising: a computer system comprising a processor (4, 18, 42), memory (38) accessible by the processor (4, 18, 42), and program instructions and data stored in the memory ([0073]-[0074]), the program instructions configured to implement a Brain Operating System to analyze an aggregate data stream and formulate instructions for neuromodulations in a closed loop feedback system ([0087]-[0088]); circuitry (6, 8) configured to receive digital data (32) representing neural signals from an implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6), generate the aggregate data stream from the received digital data representing neural signals (32), and transmit the aggregate data stream to the computer system (4, 18, 38, 42), ([0069]-[0073]) and configured to receive instructions for neuromodulations from the computer system (3, 18, 38, 42) and transmit the received instructions to the implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6), ([0087]-[0094]); and the implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6) configured to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising: a plurality of electrodes (A-H/I-P) adapted to receive electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue ([0069]-[0073]) and to transmit the electrical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue ([0087]-[0094]), the electrodes electrically coupled to at least one readout integrated circuit ([0072]), and the at least one readout integrated circuit comprising a two-dimensional array of cells of circuitry ([0041]-[0047]: the signal connection between each electrode to the A/D converter), each cell of circuitry electrically coupled to at least one electrode, each cell of circuitry comprising: circuitry adapted to receive the electrical neural signals from the plurality of electrodes, to process the electrical neural signals to form digital data representing the neural signals (which is performed by the A/D converter), and to transmit the digital data representing the neural signals, and circuitry configured receive the instructions for neuromodulations, convert the instructions for neuromodulations to electrical neural signals, and to transmit electrical neural signals through a plurality of electrodes so as to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue ([0063]-[0064], [0069]-[0094]; [0046]: the sensing and stimulation may be performed by the same electrodes so each cell of circuitry is adapted to receive and transmit electrical neural signals).
Leyde fails to disclose that the plurality of electrodes are a plurality of electrically conductive fibers comprising carbon nanotubes. However, Llinas teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising a plurality of electrically conductive fibers comprising carbon nanotubes as electrodes ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrodes disclosed by Leyde with the electrically conductive carbon nanotubes taught by Llinas because both elements perform the same function of transmitting electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Leyde/Llinas fails to teach that the plurality of electrically conductive fibers are surrounded by a gel/flesh membrane, wherein the membrane is adapted to dissolve after implantation, the gel is adapted to liquify based on temperature at about 37°C, and the lubrication of the liquified gel is adapted to attract neurons to the plurality of optically conductive fibers. However, Kaplan teaches an implant device comprising a silk gel membrane surrounding electrodes, wherein the silk membrane is adapted to dissolve after implantation, the gel is adapted to liquify based on temperature at about 37°C ([0112]: the silk membrane is adapted to liquify upon placement into target tissue, which is at body temperature about 37°C), and the lubrication of the liquified gel is adapted to attract neurons to the electrodes ([0112], [0180]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Llinas to include a gel membrane surrounding the electrodes (the plurality of electrically conductive fibers), as taught by Kaplan, because the modification would improve long-term functionality of the implant device (Kaplan; [0023]).
Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan fails to teach at least one earbud including a portion inserted into an ear canal and a portion protruding from the ear canal, configured to wirelessly communicate with the implant device comprising: a signal amplifier; a relay for modulation schemes, algorithms and/or instructions to or from the implant device; and at least one electroencephalogram (EEG) and/or vestibular sensor configured to provide data to the implant device. However, Cain (Figures 6-7) teaches a brain-computer interface system including at least one earbud (258) including a portion (inner half) inserted into an ear canal and a portion (outer half) protruding from the ear canal, configured to wirelessly communicate with a monitor device (260), ([0035], [0037]) comprising: a signal amplifier ([0037]: amplifier required to amplify the signal prior to wirelessly transmitting to the monitor); a relay (303) for modulation schemes, algorithms and/or instructions to or from the monitor device; and at least one electroencephalogram (EEG) and/or vestibular sensor configured to provide data to the implant device ([0003], [0004], [0035], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan to include teach at least one earbud including a portion inserted into an ear canal and a portion protruding from the ear canal, configured to wirelessly communicate with the implant device comprising: a signal amplifier; a relay for modulation schemes, algorithms and/or instructions to or from the implant device; and at least one electroencephalogram (EEG) and/or vestibular sensor configured to provide data to the implant device, as taught by Cain, because the modification would provide a relatively inconspicuous location for the sensor, while providing a better focus for detecting brain wave activity (Cain; [0018]).
Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain 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 Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain 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, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a first multiplexer (38), coupled to at least some of the plurality of cells of circuitry (signal paths) adapted to receive and process the electrical neural signals ([0072]-[0074]), adapted to select at least one of the electrical neural signals from the plurality of fibers ([0084]); and an analog-to-digital converter (34), coupled to the multiplexer, adapted to form digital data representing the electrical neural signals ([0069], [0073]).
Regarding claim 7, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a digital-to analog converter, coupled to a second multiplexer (42), adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and the second multiplexer (42), coupled to the circuitry adapted to transmit electrical neural signals, adapted to select at least one of the plurality of fibers to receive the analog electrical signal ([0074]: the device “may optionally comprise dedicated circuitry of a digital or analog or combined digital/analog nature, ASIC, DSP and/or a fast microprocessor,” therefore, there would need to be a digital-to-analog converter coupled to a multiplexer to turn the digital data into an analog electrical signal for use; [0084]: the device is adapted to select at least one of the different signals).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Sridhar et al., (US 20160120432; hereinafter Sridhar).
Regarding claim 4, the Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari combination teaches the device of claim 3, but fails to teach that the analog-to-digital converter has a resolution of up to 24 bits per sample. However, Sridhar teaches a neural implant system using an analog-to-digital converter having a resolution of up to 24 bits per sample ([0059]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the analog-to-digital converter disclosed by Leyde with the analog-to-digital converter taught by Sridhar because both analog-to-digital converters perform the same function of forming digital data representing electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Jackson et al., (US 20170164852; hereinafter Jackson).
Regarding claim 5, the Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari combination teaches the device of claim 3, but fails to teach that the analog-to-digital converter has a resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample. However, Jackson teaches a system for a brain-computer interface using an analog-to-digital converter which has a resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the analog-to-digital converter disclosed by Leyde with the analog-to-digital converter taught by Jackson because both analog-to-digital converters perform the same function of forming digital data representing electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 6, the Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari combination teaches the device of claim 3, but fails to teach that the analog-to-digital converter has a variable resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample. However, Jackson teaches a system for a brain-computer interface using an analog-to-digital converter which has a variable resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the analog-to-digital converter disclosed by Leyde with the analog-to-digital converter taught by Jackson because both analog-to-digital converters perform the same function of forming digital data representing electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claims 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Frewin et al., (US 20130338744; hereinafter Frewin).
Regarding claim 8, Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari fails to teach that the fibers comprise graphene. However, Frewin teaches an apparatus in which the active elements comprise graphene ([0018]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari to include fibers comprising graphene, as taught by Frewin, because the modification would provide excellent biocompatibility for the device (Frewin; [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a first multiplexer (38), coupled to at least some of the plurality of cells of circuitry (signal paths) adapted to receive and process the electrical neural signals ([0072]-[0074]), adapted to select at least one of the electrical neural signals from the plurality of fibers ([0084]); and an analog-to-digital converter (34), coupled to the multiplexer, adapted to form digital data representing the electrical neural signals ([0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a digital-to analog converter, coupled to a second multiplexer (42), adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and the second multiplexer (42), coupled to the circuitry adapted to transmit electrical neural signals, adapted to select at least one of the plurality of fibers to receive the analog electrical signal ([0074]: the device “may optionally comprise dedicated circuitry of a digital or analog or combined digital/analog nature, ASIC, DSP and/or a fast microprocessor,” therefore, there would need to be a digital-to-analog converter coupled to a multiplexer to turn the digital data into an analog electrical signal for use; [0084]: the device is adapted to select at least one of the different signals) to select at least one of the plurality of fibers to receive the analog electrical signal.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain//Ghaffari/Frewin, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Sridhar.
Regarding claim 10, the Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain//Ghaffari/Frewin combination teaches the device of claim 9, but fails to teach that the analog-to-digital converter has a resolution of up to 24 bits per sample. However, Sridhar teaches a neural implant system using an analog-to-digital converter having a resolution of up to 24 bits per sample ([0059]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the analog-to-digital converter disclosed by Leyde with the analog-to-digital converter taught by Sridhar because both analog-to-digital converters perform the same function of forming digital data representing electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain//Ghaffari/Frewin, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Jackson.
Regarding claim 11, the Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain//Ghaffari/Frewin combination teaches the device of claim 9, but fails to teach that the analog-to-digital converter has a resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample. However, Jackson teaches a system for a brain-computer interface using an analog-to-digital converter which has a resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the analog-to-digital converter disclosed by Leyde with the analog-to-digital converter taught by Jackson because both analog-to-digital converters perform the same function of forming digital data representing electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 12, the Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain/Ghaffari/Frewin combination teaches the device of claim 9, but fails to teach that the analog-to-digital converter has a variable resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample. However, Jackson teaches a system for a brain-computer interface using an analog-to-digital converter which has a variable resolution of from 8 bits per sample to 12 bits per sample ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the analog-to-digital converter disclosed by Leyde with the analog-to-digital converter taught by Jackson because both analog-to-digital converters perform the same function of forming digital data representing electrical signals, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde in view of Flaherty et al., (US 20050273890; hereinafter Flaherty), Kaplan, and Cain.
Regarding claims 14-15, Leyde discloses (Figures 2 and 6-7) a system comprising: a computer system comprising a processor (4, 18, 42), memory (38) accessible by the processor (4, 18, 42), and program instructions and data stored in the memory ([0073]-[0074]), the program instructions configured to implement a Brain Operating System to analyze an aggregate data stream and formulate instructions for neuromodulations in a closed loop feedback system ([0087]-[0088]); circuitry (6, 8) configured to receive digital data (32) representing neural signals from an implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6), generate the aggregate data stream from the digital data representing neural signals, and transmit the aggregate data stream to the computer system (4, 18, 38, 42), ([0069]-[0073]) and configured to receive instructions for neuromodulations from the computer system (3, 18, 38, 42) and transmit the received instructions to the implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6), ([0087]-[0094]); and the implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6) configured to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising: a plurality of active elements (A-H/I-P) adapted to receive signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue ([0069]-[0073]) and to transmit signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue ([0087]-[0094]), the active elements coupled to at least one readout integrated circuit ([0072]), and at least one readout integrated circuit comprising a two-dimensional array of cells of circuitry ([0041]-[0047]: the signal connection between each electrode to the A/D converter), each cell electrically coupled to at least one active element, each cell of circuitry comprising: circuitry adapted to receive the signals from the plurality of active elements, to process the signals to form digital data representing the neural signals (which is performed by the A/D converter), and to transmit the digital data, and circuitry configured receive the instructions for neuromodulations, convert the instructions for neuromodulations to electrical neural signals, and to transmit signals through the plurality of active elements so as to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue ([0063]-[0064], [0069]-[0094]; [0046]: the sensing and stimulation may be performed by the same active element so each cell of circuitry is adapted to receive and transmit electrical neural signals).
Leyde fails to disclose that the plurality of active elements are a plurality of optically conductive fibers comprising optical fibers. However, Flaherty teaches an apparatus for interacting with brain tissue, comprising a plurality of optically conductive fibers comprising optic fibers as active elements ([0031], [0048], [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde to include a plurality of optic fibers, as taught by Flaherty, because the modification would provide other means of transmitting data and/or power, which may be used in combination with other active elements to transmit information between different components of the apparatus (Flaherty; [0048]). Furthermore, in the modified device, the plurality of optically conductive optical fibers would be adapted to receive optical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, and to transmit optical signals to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue, the fibers optically coupled to at least one readout integrated circuit; and the circuitry would be adapted to receive the optical signals from the plurality of fibers and to process the optical signals to form digital data representing the neural signals, and to transmit optical signals through the plurality of carbon fibers so as to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Leyde/Llinas fails to teach that the plurality of electrically conductive fibers are surrounded by a gel/flesh membrane, wherein the membrane is adapted to dissolve after implantation, the gel is adapted to liquify based on temperature at about 37°C, and the lubrication of the liquified gel is adapted to attract neurons to the plurality of optically conductive fibers. However, Kaplan teaches an implant device comprising a silk gel membrane surrounding electrodes, wherein the silk membrane is adapted to dissolve after implantation, the gel is adapted to liquify based on temperature at about 37°C ([0112]: the silk membrane is adapted to liquify upon placement into target tissue, which is at body temperature about 37°C), and the lubrication of the liquified gel is adapted to attract neurons to the electrodes ([0112], [0180]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Llinas to include a gel membrane surrounding the electrodes (the plurality of electrically conductive fibers), as taught by Kaplan, because the modification would improve long-term functionality of the implant device (Kaplan; [0023]).
Leyde/Flaherty/Kaplan fails to teach at least one earbud including a portion inserted into an ear canal and a portion protruding from the ear canal, configured to wirelessly communicate with the implant device comprising: a signal amplifier; a relay for modulation schemes, algorithms and/or instructions to or from the implant device; and at least one electroencephalogram (EEG) and/or vestibular sensor configured to provide data to the implant device. However, Cain (Figures 6-7) teaches a brain-computer interface system including at least one earbud (258) including a portion (inner half) inserted into an ear canal and a portion (outer half) protruding from the ear canal, configured to wirelessly communicate with a monitor device (260), ([0035], [0037]) comprising: a signal amplifier ([0037]: amplifier required to amplify the signal prior to wirelessly transmitting to the monitor); a relay (303) for modulation schemes, algorithms and/or instructions to or from the monitor device; and at least one electroencephalogram (EEG) and/or vestibular sensor configured to provide data to the implant device ([0003], [0004], [0035], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Flaherty/Kaplan to include teach at least one earbud including a portion inserted into an ear canal and a portion protruding from the ear canal, configured to wirelessly communicate with the implant device comprising: a signal amplifier; a relay for modulation schemes, algorithms and/or instructions to or from the implant device; and at least one electroencephalogram (EEG) and/or vestibular sensor configured to provide data to the implant device, as taught by Cain, because the modification would provide a relatively inconspicuous location for the sensor, while providing a better focus for detecting brain wave activity (Cain; [0018]).
Leyde/Flaherty/Kaplan/Cain 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 Leyde/Flaherty/Kaplan/Cain 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 16, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a first multiplexer (38), coupled to the circuitry (signal paths) adapted to receive and process the signals ([0072]-[0074]), adapted to select at least one of the signals from the plurality of active elements ([0084]); and an analog-to-digital converter (34), coupled to the circuitry, adapted to form digital data representing the signals ([0069], [0073]). Since the modified device of claim 15 includes optically conductive optical fibers as the active elements, the modified device would include an optical multiplexer, coupled to the circuitry adapted to receive and process the optical signals, adapted to select at least one of the optical signals from the plurality of fibers; circuitry, coupled to the multiplexer, adapted to convert the optical signals to analog electrical signals; and an analog-to-digital converter, coupled to the circuitry adapted to convert the optical signals to analog electrical signals, adapted to form digital data representing the analog electrical signals.
Regarding claim 17, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) circuitry, coupled to a second multiplexer (42), adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and the second multiplexer (42), coupled to the circuitry adapted to transmit the signals, adapted to select at least one of the plurality of active elements to receive the signal ([0074]: the device “may optionally comprise dedicated circuitry of a digital or analog or combined digital/analog nature, ASIC, DSP and/or a fast microprocessor,” therefore, there would need to be a digital-to-analog converter coupled to a multiplexer to turn the digital data into an analog electrical signal for use; [0084]: the device is adapted to select at least one of the different signals). Since the modified device of claims 15-16 includes optically conductive optical fibers as the active elements, the modified device would include circuitry, coupled to a multiplexer, adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and a multiplexer, coupled to the circuitry adapted to transmit the optical signals, adapted to select at least one of the plurality of carbon fibers to receive the optical signal.
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(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is/are made in view of newly found prior art reference Ghaffari, which teaches an implant device, which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid. In combination with Leyde/Llinas/Kaplan/Cain, the modified system teaches the invention as recited at least in amended independent claim 1. In combination with Leyde/Flaherty/Kaplan/Cain, the modified system teaches the invention as recited at least in amended independent claim 14.
Conclusion
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