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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least one of, a Halorhodopsin, and an Archaerhodopsin (Arch)” in lines 21-22 should be written “at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (Arch)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least one of, a Halorhodopsin, and an Archaerhodopsin (Arch)” in lines 23-24 should be written “at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (Arch)”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plurality of optic fibers" in lines 16-17 and 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 also recites the limitation “carbon nanotubes” in line 22. This limitation appears abruptly in the claim language, so it is unclear how this limitation is intended to be interpreted.
Claims 14-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde (US 20130046358) in view of Flaherty et al., (US 20050273890; hereinafter Flaherty), Llinas (US 20040133118), Osorio, (US 20120265262; hereinafter Osorio), Okandan et al., (US 9907496; hereinafter Okandan), Ando, (US 20130123639), and Peyman et al., (US 20160022976; hereinafter Peyman).
Regarding claim 1, 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) from an implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6), generate an aggregate data stream from the received 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 active elements (A-H/I-P) adapted to receive electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue ([0069]-[0073]) and to transmit electrical 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 plurality of cells of circuitry (the signal connection between each electrode to the A/D converter), each cell electrically coupled to at least one electrode, each cell of circuitry comprising: circuitry adapted to receive the electrical neural signals from the plurality of active elements, 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, and circuitry configured receive the instructions for neuromodulations, convert the instructions for neuromodulations to electrical neural signals, and to transmit electrical neural 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 elements 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 optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes adapted to receive and transmit optical and electrical signals 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, Llinas teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising a plurality of fibers coated with carbon nanotubes as active elements ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carbon nanotube coating, as taught by Llinas, because the modification would allow the interface to be removed without violating the integrity of the brain (Llinas; [0019]). Accordingly, in the modified device, the plurality of optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes would be adapted to receive optical and electrical signals from electrophysiological neural signals of the brain tissue, and to transmit optical and electrical 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 and electrical signals from the plurality of fibers and to process the optical and electrical signals to form digital data representing the neural signals, and to transmit optical and electrical signals through the plurality of carbon fibers so as to provide electrophysiological stimulation of the brain tissue.
Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas fails to teach that the plurality of optic fibers are adapted to, and having a length sufficient to, connect to pyramidal layers II to VI of the brain tissue. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein the sensors (282) of a device are adapted to, and having a length sufficient to, connect pyramidal layers within a brain cortical structure so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers ([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 Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas such that the sensors of the device are adapted to, and having a length sufficient to, connect to pyramidal layers II to VI of the brain tissue, 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 II 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 II to VI of a brain cortex region.
Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio fails to teach that the circuitry is adapted to separate the received incoming optical neural signals and the outgoing optical neural signals using a beam splitter. However, Okandan (Figure 1A) teaches as optical probe (100), (Col. 5, lines 40-64), comprising circuitry adapted to separate desired optical neural signals using a beam splitter (Col. 20, lines 59-62). 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/Llinas/Osorio to include a beam splitter adapted to separate desired optical neural signals, as taught by Okandan, because the modification would enable focusing or directing of optical neural signals as desired (Okandan; Col. 20, lines 59-62). Furthermore, since the beam splitter of the modified system is adapted to separate desired optical neural signals, the circuitry of the modified system may be adapted to separate the received incoming optical neural signals and the outgoing optical neural signals using the beam splitter.
Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan fails to teach the beam splitter transforming the received incoming optical neural signals from baseband signals to bandpass signals through an optical modulator. However, Ando teaches a biosignal detection system comprising detection circuitry ([0676]) including an optical modulator (133), ([0677], [1073]). 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/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan to include an optical modulator, as taught by Ando, because the modification would improve detection accuracy and reliability of the detected biosignal (Ando; [0250]). Furthermore, since the biosignals in the modified system would be the received incoming optical neural signals, the beam splitter of the modified system would transform the received incoming optical neural signals from baseband signals to bandpass signals.
Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando fails to teach a plurality of viruses carried on a tip of a carbon nanotube of an optic fiber of the plurality of optic fibers, each virus adapted to cause neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (Arch). However, Peyman teaches carbon nanotubes ([0054]-[0055]: the nanoparticles may be carbon nanotubes) being conjugated with a plurality of viruses, including adeno-associated virus/AAV ([0026]). It is known that adeno-associated virus/AAV causes neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (as evidenced by Towne et al., US 20160030765; [0059]). It would have been obvious to modify Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando to include a plurality of viruses carried on a tip of a carbon nanotube of an optic fiber of the plurality of optic fibers, each virus adapted to cause neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin, as taught by Peyman, because the modification would provide immunotherapy in addition to thermal therapy (Peyman; [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a multiplexer (42), coupled to a 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 6, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a digital-to analog converter, coupled to a multiplexer (42), adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and a 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).
Claims 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde in view of Flaherty, Peyman, Osorio, Okandan, and Ando.
Regarding claims 13, 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) from an implant device (implanted electrode arrays shown for example in Figures 2 and 6), generate an aggregate data stream from the received 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 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 plurality of cells of circuitry (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/Flaherty fails to teach a plurality of viruses carried on a tip of a carbon nanotube of an optic fiber of the plurality of optic fibers, each virus adapted to cause neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (Arch). However, Peyman teaches carbon nanotubes ([0054]-[0055]: the nanoparticles may be carbon nanotubes) being conjugated with a plurality of viruses, including adeno-associated virus/AAV ([0026]). It is known that adeno-associated virus/AAV causes neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (as evidenced by Towne et al., US 20160030765; [0059]). It would have been obvious to modify Leyde/Flaherty to include a plurality of viruses carried on a tip of a carbon nanotube of an optic fiber of the plurality of optic fibers, each virus adapted to cause neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin, as taught by Peyman, because the modification would provide immunotherapy in addition to thermal therapy (Peyman; [0026]).
Leyde/Flaherty/Peyman fails to teach that the plurality of optic fibers are adapted to, and have a length sufficient to, connect to pyramidal layers II to VI of the brain tissue. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein the sensors (282) of a device are adapted to, and having a length sufficient to, connect pyramidal layers within a brain cortical structure so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers ([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 Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas such that the sensors of the device are adapted to, and having a length sufficient to, connect to pyramidal layers II to VI of the brain tissue, 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 II 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 II to VI of a brain cortex region.
Leyde/Flaherty/Peyman/Osorio fails to teach that the circuitry is adapted to separate the received incoming optical neural signals and the outgoing optical neural signals using a beam splitter. However, Okandan (Figure 1A) teaches an optical probe (100), (Col. 5, lines 40-64), comprising circuitry adapted to separate desired optical neural signals using a beam splitter (Col. 20, lines 59-62). 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/Peyman/Osorio to include a beam splitter adapted to separate desired optical neural signals, as taught by Okandan, because the modification would enable focusing or directing of optical neural signals as desired (Okandan; Col. 20, lines 59-62). Furthermore, since the beam splitter of the modified system is adapted to separate desired optical neural signals, the circuitry of the modified system may be adapted to separate the received incoming optical neural signals and the outgoing optical neural signals using the beam splitter.
Leyde/Flaherty/Peyman/Osorio/Okandan fails to teach the beam splitter transforming the received incoming optical neural signals from baseband signals to bandpass signals through an optical modulator. However, Ando teaches a biosignal detection system comprising detection circuitry ([0676]) including an optical modulator (133), ([0677], [1073]). 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/Peyman/Osorio/Okandan to include an optical modulator, as taught by Ando, because the modification would improve detection accuracy and reliability of the detected biosignal (Ando; [0250]). Furthermore, since the biosignals in the modified system would be the received incoming optical neural signals, the beam splitter of the modified system would transform the received incoming optical neural signals from baseband signals to bandpass signals.
Regarding claim 15, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a multiplexer (42), 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]). 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 16, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) circuitry, coupled to a multiplexer (42), adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and a 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Sridhar et al., (US 20160120432; hereinafter Sridhar).
Regarding claim 3, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman combination teaches the device of claim 2, 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Jackson et al., (US 20170164852; hereinafter Jackson).
Regarding claim 4, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman combination teaches the device of claim 2, 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 5, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman combination teaches the device of claim 2, 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 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Frewin et al., (US 20130338744; hereinafter Frewin).
Regarding claim 7, Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman 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/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman to include fibers comprising graphene, as taught by Frewin, because the modification would provide excellent biocompatibility for the device (Frewin; [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a multiplexer (42), coupled to a 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 12, Leyde further discloses (Figures 6-7) a digital-to analog converter, coupled to a multiplexer (42), adapted to form an analog electrical signal based on digital data representing a stimulation signal; and a 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman/Frewin, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Sridhar.
Regarding claim 9, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman/Frewin combination teaches the device of claim 8, 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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman/Frewin, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Jackson.
Regarding claim 10, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman/Frewin combination teaches the device of claim 8, 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 11, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/ Peyman/Frewin combination teaches the device of claim 8, 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde/Flaherty/Peyman/Osorio/Okandan/Ando, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Frewin.
Regarding claim 14, Leyde/Flaherty/Kozai/ Peyman/Okandan/Ando fails to teach that the plurality of optically conductive 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/Flaherty/Kozai/ Peyman/Okandan/Ando to include fibers comprising graphene, as taught by Frewin, because the modification would provide excellent biocompatibility for the device (Frewin; [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/01/2026, regarding the newly amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 13, 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 Peyman and a new interpretation of the Ando reference. Peyman teaches carbon nanotubes being conjugated with a plurality of viruses, including adeno-associated virus/AAV, which is known to cause neural tissue to express at least one of a Halorhodopsin and an Archaerhodopsin (as evidenced by Towne et al., US 20160030765; [0059]). Furthermore, under the new interpretation of Ando, the biosignal detection system comprises detection circuitry including an optical modulator. Accordingly, the Leyde/Flaherty/Llinas/Osorio/Okandan/Ando/Peyman combination teaches the invention as claimed at least in amended independent claim 1 and the Leyde/Flaherty/Peyman/Osario/Okandan/Ando combination teaches the invention as claimed at least in amended independent claim 13.
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
