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(s) 1, 4-9, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US 20130338526) in view of Kumta et al., (US 20140255952; hereinafter Kumta), Hoon et al., (US 20050153379; hereinafter Hoon), and Shim, Bong Sup, et al. to “Integration of Conductivity, Transparency, and Mechanical Strength into Highly Homogenous Layer-by-Layer Composites of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes for Optoelectronics,” Chemistry of Materials (2007), 19(23), pp. 5467-5474 (hereinafter Shim).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Howard (Figures 1-3) discloses a method for catecholamine (dopamine) sensing comprising: outputting a signal responsive to a level of at least one catecholamine (dopamine) in neural tissue from a catecholamine sensor (read modality/sensor), wherein the detected catecholamine comprises epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dopamine; analyzing the signal responsive to a catecholamine (dopamine) level in the neural tissue using circuitry connected to the catecholamine sensor (read modality/sensor), the circuitry comprising 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; generating, using the circuitry, data representing the catecholamine (dopamine) level in the neural tissue; and transmitting the generated data representing the catecholamine (dopamine) level in the neural tissue using communication circuitry. The catecholamine sensor inherently utilizes signal separation, so the catecholamine sensor is inherently operable to decrease false-positive recordings by utilizing signal separation. ([0011]-[0014], [0044], [0103]-[0107]: the read modality/sensor may be configured for neurotransmitter level measurement, wherein the neurotransmitter may be dopamine as stated in paragraph [0044]).
Howard fails to disclose that the catecholamine sensor comprises a plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes vertically aligned relative to a silicon substrate. However, Kumta teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person comprising a plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes as electrodes/biosensors, wherein the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes are vertically aligned relative to a silicon substrate ([0027]). 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/sensors disclosed by Howard with the carbon nanotube biosensors taught by Kumta because both electrodes/sensors perform the same sensing function, 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).
Howard/Kumta fails to teach that the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes are coated with at least one of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoroether, wherein the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes are coated with a tetrafluoroethylene main chain with perfluoroether side chains terminated with a sulfonic acid group, and the coating of the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes improves the detection of catecholamines. However, Hoon teaches a sensing method using a sensor comprising carbon nanotubes ([0085]) coated with Nafion ([0093]), which is a coating comprising a tetrafluoroethylene main chain with perfluoroether side chains terminated with a sulfonic acid group (paragraph [0702] of the instant specification discloses that Nafion consists of a tetrafluoroethylene main chain with perfluoroether side chains terminated with a sulfonic acid group). 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/Kumta to include a Nafion coating on the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Hoon, because the modification would provide a selectively permeable ion-exchange membrane based on desired particle size and ionic charge as required (Hoon; [0093]).
Howard/Kumta/Hoon fails to teach that the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes is adapted to function as both recording electrodes and stimulating optical fibers. However, Shim teaches using single walled carbon nanotubes in optoelectronics, wherein the single walled carbon nanotubes may be adapted to function as both recording electrodes and stimulating optical fibers (Section: Electrical Conductivity of [PVA/(SWNT + PSS)]n LBL Films). 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/Kumta/Hoon to include the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes adapted to function as both recording electrodes and stimulating optical fibers, as taught by Shim, because the modification would provide a winning combination of parameters for optoelectronics and energy harvesting (Shim; Section: Introduction) for energy efficiency, device compactness, and enhanced functionality.
Regarding claim 7, Howard/Kumta/Hoon/Shim teaches the system of claim 1, but Howard/Hoon/Shim fails to teach that the catecholamine sensor comprises a plurality of structures including at least one of graphene, carbon nanohorns, graphene nanofoams, graphene nanorods, and graphene nanoflowers. However, Kumta teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising carbon nanotubes/graphene nanorods as electrodes/sensors ([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/sensors disclosed by Howard with the carbon nanotubes/graphene nanorods taught by Kumta because both electrodes/sensors perform the same sensing function, 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 8, Howard (Figures 1-3) further discloses that the system comprises a device implanted in the neurocranium ([0011]-[0014], [0044], [0103]-[0107]).
Regarding claims 9 and 12-14, Howard (Figures 1-3) discloses a catecholamine (dopamine) sensor system comprising: a catecholamine (dopamine) sensor (read modality/sensor) configured to output a signal responsive to a level of at least one catecholamine (dopamine) in neural tissue, wherein the detected catecholamine comprises epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dopamine; circuitry connected to the catecholamine sensor (read modality/sensor) comprising 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: analyzing the signal responsive to a catecholamine (dopamine) level in the neural tissue, and generating data representing the catecholamine (dopamine) level in the neural tissue; and communication circuitry configured to transmit the generated data representing the catecholamine level in the neural tissue. The catecholamine sensor inherently utilizes signal separation, so the catecholamine sensor is inherently operable to decrease false-positive recordings by utilizing signal separation. ([0011]-[0014], [0044], [0103]-[0107]: the read modality/sensor may be configured for neurotransmitter level measurement, wherein the neurotransmitter may be dopamine as stated in paragraph [0044]).
Howard fails to disclose that the catecholamine sensor comprises a silicon substrate and a plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes vertically aligned relative to a silicon substrate. However, Kumta teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person comprising a plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes as electrodes/biosensors, wherein the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes are vertically aligned relative to a silicon substrate ([0027]). 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 structure of the catecholamine sensor disclosed by Howard with the structure of the carbon nanotube biosensor taught by Kumta because both electrodes/sensors perform the same sensing function, 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).
Howard/Kumta fails to teach that the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes are coated with at least one of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoroether, wherein the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes are coated with a tetrafluoroethylene main chain with perfluoroether side chains terminated with a sulfonic acid group, and the coating of the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes improves the detection of catecholamines. However, Hoon teaches a sensing method using a sensor comprising carbon nanotubes ([0085]) coated with Nafion ([0093]), which is a coating comprising a tetrafluoroethylene main chain with perfluoroether side chains terminated with a sulfonic acid group (paragraph [0702] of the instant specification discloses that Nafion consists of a tetrafluoroethylene main chain with perfluoroether side chains terminated with a sulfonic acid group). 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/Kumta to include a Nafion coating on the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Hoon, because the modification would provide a selectively permeable ion-exchange membrane based on desired particle size and ionic charge as required (Hoon; [0093]).
Howard/Kumta/Hoon fails to teach that the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes is adapted to function as both recording electrodes and stimulating optical fibers. However, Shim teaches using single walled carbon nanotubes in optoelectronics, wherein the single walled carbon nanotubes may be adapted to function as both recording electrodes and stimulating optical fibers (Section: Electrical Conductivity of [PVA/(SWNT + PSS)]n LBL Films). 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/Kumta/Hoon to include the plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes adapted to function as both recording electrodes and stimulating optical fibers, as taught by Shim, because the modification would provide a winning combination of parameters for optoelectronics and energy harvesting (Shim; Section: Introduction) for energy efficiency, device compactness, and enhanced functionality.
Regarding claim 15, Howard/Kumta/Hoon/Shim teaches the system of claim 9, but Howard/Kumta/Shim fails to teach that the catecholamine sensor comprises a plurality of structures including at least one of graphene, carbon nanohorns, graphene nanofoams, graphene nanorods, and graphene nanoflowers. However, Kumta teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising carbon nanotubes/graphene nanorods as electrodes/sensors ([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/sensors disclosed by Howard with the carbon nanotubes/graphene nanorods taught by Kumta because both electrodes/sensors perform the same sensing function, 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 16, Howard (Figures 1-3) further discloses that the system comprises a device implanted in the neurocranium ([0011]-[0014], [0044], [0103]-[0107]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025, with regard to the newly amended claim limitations, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The catecholamine sensor inherently utilizes signal separation, so the catecholamine sensor is inherently operable to decrease false-positive recordings by utilizing signal separation. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the cited reference(s) disclose/teach the invention as recited in the currently amended set of claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights