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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-16 and 35-36 remain pending in the application. Claims 17-34 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Argument’s, Pages 8-9, filed 05/18/2026, the applicant has argued that “the claimed dimension achieve a biological and electrical balance for the tissue-electrode interaction” and that “the dimensions achieve an electrochemical containment, and that the depth is also physically required to prevent lateral film growth”, however the examiner disagrees. While the applicant has attempted to point out the criticality of the claimed dimensions it appears that the specification does not provide support for the rationale that the applicant is relying on. It appears that the preventing the lateral film growth is controlled through the use of a “mask in depositing the conductive polymer protruding portion” (Paragraph [0078]). Further, the applicant has cited Paragraph [0066], which does not disclose the criticality of the “biological and electrical balance for the tissue-electrode interaction”. Rather Paragraph [0066] describes that the dimensions of the recess are to accommodate an electrodeposition of polymer or conductor material in the recess. Paragraph [0074] further discloses the electrodeposition process to vary thickness of the conductive polymer wherein the thickness is below the substrate surface to serve as a site for tissue growth once implanted to better anchor the electrode. While varying the thickness does vary the depth of the recess, the examiner does not agree that the disclosure supports the claim of conductive polymer preventing lateral film growth.
Further, it appears the applicant is trying to argue product by process by claiming “thereby preventing lateral film growth and maintaining electrode dimensions to initial geometric limits”. The applicant appears to argue that the dimensions of the conductive polymer limit the lateral film growth, however it appears that the use of a mask is what limits the lateral film growth according to Paragraph [0076] of the specification. The examiner recommends incorporating the mask into the claim as the mask changes the device to prevent lateral growth regardless of the dimension. Therefore by including the product by process limitation in the claim, the device is limited by the method of creating the recess structure as it imposes a structural change to the device, by preventing lateral film growth.
Lastly, the applicant has argued that the McDonald reference teaches away from the claimed invention as it teaches through-hole recesses, see Applicant’s Argument’s, Page 9, filed 05/18/2026, however the examiner was not relying on the teaching of the through-holes, rather that the recesses are used for tissue ingrowth, wherein in combination with the teachings of Tooker and Clements, the recesses of Tooker would be used for tissue ingrowth to further provide the benefit of anchoring the electrode structure to the tissue as described by McDonald. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-16, and 36 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker et al. (US Pat. 9,399,128) herein referred to as “Tooker” in view of Clements et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2020/0138313) herein referred to as “Clements” further in view of McDonald et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0058487) herein referred to as “McDonald”, Claim 5 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Wilks et al. (Wilks, Seth J, et al. “Poly(3,4-Ethylene Dioxythiophene) (PEDOT) as a Micro-Neural Interface Material for Electrostimulation.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 13 May 2009) herein referred to as “Wilks”, Claim 7 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Shippy, III et al. (US Pat. 8275455) herein referred to as “Shippy”, and Claim 35 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2021/0102304) herein referred to as “Zeng”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, which discloses “a layer of conductive polymer in contact with the first surface of the conducting element and contained within the first and second walls of the recess such that the conductive polymer does not extend laterally beyond the walls of the recess thereby preventing lateral film growth and maintaining electrode dimensions to initial geometric limits”. However the specification discloses in Paragraph [0076], “the conductive polymer protruding portion has the same dimensions as the recess from which it extends and there is no lateral growth due to the use of, for example, a mask while forming the layer”. Therefore, “thereby preventing lateral film growth and maintaining electrode dimensions to initial geometric limits” is seen as new matter as the specification does not provide support for this claimed subject matter. Further, it appears that the protruding portion of the conductive polymer layer is used to limit the electrode to the initial geometric limits of the recess as it comprises the same dimensions as the recess. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 35-36 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-16, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker et al. (US Pat. 9,399,128) herein referred to as “Tooker” in view of Clements et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2020/0138313) herein referred to as “Clements” further in view of McDonald et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 2014/0058487) herein referred to as “McDonald”.
Regarding claim 1, Tooker embodiment 1 discloses an implantable medical electrode for stimulation or sensing (the flexible neural interface with integrated stiffening shank described here is suitable for implantation in both humans and animals, Col. 4, lines 31-33) wherein the electrode comprises:
an electrically insulating substrate having a substrate surface (multilayer body 402, Col. 7, lines 65-66, Figures 4A and 4B),
wherein the substrate surface comprises at least one recess (top electrodes 408 are recessed from the top polymer layers, Col. 8, lines 1-2, Figures 4A and 4B)
wherein the at least one recess comprises: a bottom surface (bottom surface, see modified Figure 4B below) arranged at a first distance to the substrate surface (first distance, see modified Figure 4B below)
PNG
media_image1.png
290
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a first wall and a second wall opposed from each other and each connecting the bottom surface to the substrate surface (first wall and a second wall, see modified Figure 4B below)
PNG
media_image2.png
285
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a layer of conductive polymer in contact with the first surface of the conducting element and contained within the first and second walls of the recess and not extending outside the recess (top electrode 408 contained within the walls of the recess, made of any conductive material (including conductive polymers), Figure 4B, Col. 7, lines 1-4, and Col. 7, lines 38-52),
and thereby preventing lateral film growth and maintaining electrode dimensions to initial geometric limits (walls of the recess maintain the electrode dimensions and prevent lateral film growth within the recess, see modified Figure 4B above),
wherein the layer of conductive polymer has a maximum thickness that is less than the first distance, thereby defining a void between the conductive polymer and the substrate surface (conductive polymer layer 408 is a thickness less than the first distance, defining a void between the conductive polymer and substrate surface, see modified Figure 4B below),
PNG
media_image3.png
279
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a connecting element (the electrodes are sandwiched between polymer layers and connected by traces 410 (seen as a connecting element), Col. 8, lines 2-4, Figures 4A and 4B),
Tooker embodiment 1 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first distance is in a range from 20um to 50um. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the first distance to be from 20 um to 50 um, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the neural interface can be used with multiple layers of interconnection trace metal for both the top and bottom electrodes (Col. 6, lines 40-44), however Tooker embodiment 1 does not explicitly disclose a conducting element having first and second surfaces opposite each other and arranged with the second surface in contact with the bottom surface and the conducting element contained within the first and second walls of the recess and not extending outside the walls of the recess, wherein the layer of conductive polymer is in contact with the first surface of the conducting element, thus forming an electrical connection with the conducting element when a current is applied and a connecting element coupled to the second surface of the conducting element.
Clements discloses an example electrode patch comprising a plurality of electrodes (Abstract). Clements further discloses a conducting element having first and second surfaces opposite each other and arranged with the second surface in contact with the bottom surface (electrode contacts 106A and traces are fabricated onto the flexible substrate within a recess, Paragraph [0056], Figures 3A-3C) and the conducting element contained within the first and second walls of the recess such that the conductive polymer does not extend laterally outside the walls of the recess (electrode contact 106A is contained within the recess and does not extend laterally outside the walls of the recess, Figures 3A-3C),
wherein the layer of conductive polymer is in contact with the first surface of the conducting element (the hydrogel 106B can be fixed or bonded to the electrode contact 106A, Paragraph [0056], the hydrogel that forms the electrodes 106 is conductive, for example, by ionic conductivity or by including conductive fillers (i.e., conductive polymers) in the hydrogel, Paragraph [055], Figures 3A-3C),
thus forming an electrical connection with the conducting element when a current is applied (the hydrogel 106B, which is attached to the relatively small electrode contact 106A, “sticks out” relative to the flexible substrate 102, the raised geometry facilitates the creation of an intimate, stable interface between the hydrogel and the skin surface, Paragraph [0057])
and a connecting element coupled to the second surface of the conducting element (each of the traces 118 extends between one of the electrode 106 and the peripheral region 120, the traces 118 can be fabricated onto the flexible substrate 102, Paragraph [0060], Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the implantable electrode structure as taught by Tooker embodiment 1 to incorporate wherein the conducting element is contained within the first and second walls of the recess such that the conductive polymer does not extend laterally outside the walls of the recess and an electrode contact layer between the conductive polymer layer and the connecting element as taught by Clements. In doing so the conducting element would be connected to the conductive polymer on its top surface and the connecting element on its bottom surface and the conducting element would be contained within the first and second walls of the recess. The motivation to do so being to form a conductive contact between the electrical trace and the electrode in order to be able to record signals from the patient (Clements, Paragraph [0060]).
Further, Took embodiment 1 does not explicitly discloses wherein said void is configured to promote tissue ingrowth for anchoring the electrode.
McDonald discloses an implantable lead for stimulating tissue including a lead body (Abstract) wherein the device comprises voids configured to promote tissue ingrowth for anchoring the electrode (it may be advantageous to arrange the apertures 512 along at least a portion of the lead 501 such that the size, shape, orientation, and arrangement of the apertures are configured and arranged to promote tissue ingrowth to facilitate anchoring of the lead 501 to the patient tissue, Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the implantable electrode structure as taught by Tooker embodiment 1 to incorporate wherein the void is of whatever size or shape necessary so that the void is configured to promote tissue ingrowth for anchoring the electrode as taught by McDonald. The motivation to do so being to promote tissue ingrowth to facilitate anchoring the electrode to the patient tissue (McDonald, Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the layer of conductive polymer has a maximum thickness such that does not extend beyond the substrate surface (top electrode 408 does not extend beyond the substrate surface, Figure 4B).
Regarding claim 3, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the substrate is flexible (flexible neural interface, i.e., flexible substrate, Col. 7, lines 61-62, Figures 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 6, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses a connecting element capable of connecting the conducting element to a current source (the electrodes are sandwiched between polymer layers and connected by traces 410, wherein the connector region of the device is not shown, but is capable of connecting the conducting element to a current source, Col. 8, lines 2-5, Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 10, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the at least one recess has a geometry selected from the group consisting of a cylinder, a cube, a cuboid, a trapezoid, a square, a circle, a rectangle, and a triangle (recess is a circle, Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 11, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the implantable medical electrode comprises a plurality of recesses arranged in a pattern throughout the electrode (plurality of circular recesses arranged in a line pattern throughout the electrode, Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 12, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the pattern is selected from the group consisting of a grid, axial lines, radial lines (plurality of circular recesses are arranged in an axial line, Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 13, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of a polymer, a natural rubber, a natural fiber, and a ceramic (polymer-based neural probe with an integrated stiffening shank, Col. 3, lines 30-32, a top polymer layer 34 deposited on the top electrode metal 32, wherein openings are etched in the top polymer for the top electrodes and external connections, Col. 5, lines 27-32, Figures 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 14, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 further discloses wherein the substrate comprises a polymer the polymer is selected from the group consisting of a polyester, a polyethylene foam, a cellulose rayon non-woven material, polyethylene vinyl acetate, polyurethane, and polyimide (the fabrication process is independent of the specific type of polymer used to create the neural interface, polyimides and parylenes are the two most commonly used due to their biocompatibility, Col. 6, lines 57-65).
Regarding claim 15, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
However Tooker embodiment 1 does not explicitly disclose a conducting element wherein the conducting element comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, nitinol, and alloys thereof.
Clements discloses a conducting element (electrode contact 106A, Figures 3A-3C) wherein the conducting element comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, nitinol, and alloys thereof (electrodes may be composed of any substantially conductive material including but not limited to metals (such as gold, silver, platinum, and various alloys), Paragraph [0104])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald to incorporate the teachings of Clements by including wherein the conducting element comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, gold, nitinol, and alloys thereof. The motivation to do so being to compose the electrode of a conductive material for apply stimulation and/or record electrical activity from each electrode (Clements, Paragraphs [0104] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses an implantable medical device comprising the implantable medical electrode of claim 1 (the flexible neural interface with integrated stiffening shank described here is suitable for implantation in both humans and animals, Col. 4, lines 31-33, comprising implantable medical electrodes 408, Figures 4A and 4B, (see claim 1 rejection)).
Claims 4, 8, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Tooker embodiment 2.
Regarding claim 4, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer of conductive polymer protrudes above the substrate surface, however, Tooker embodiment 2 discloses wherein the layer of conductive polymer protrudes above the substrate surface (the top electrode 508 made of a conductive polymer is outside the polymer layers, Figure 5B, Col. 8, lines 18-30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive polymer layer as taught by Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald to incorporate the teachings of Tooker embodiment 2 by including a conductive polymer layer that protrudes above the substrate surface. The motivation to do so being to provide a conductive contact with the patient for accurate recording and stimulation (Tooker, Col. 6, lines 19-39).
Regarding claim 8, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Tooker embodiment 2 discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 4.
However Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer of conductive polymer protruding above the substrate surface comprises a pattern of lines.
Tooker embodiment 2 discloses wherein the layer of conductive polymer protruding above the substrate surface comprises a pattern of lines (conductive polymer 508 extending above the substrate surface comprises a pattern of lines, Figure 5A, electrodes can be arranged independently in a variety of ways (i.e. straight lines), Col. 8, lines 36-38).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive layer as disclosed by Tooker embodiment 1 to protrude above the substrate surface and comprise a pattern of lines as taught by Tooker embodiment 2. The motivation to do so being to effectively organize the electrodes onto a single neural interface for effective recording and stimulation (Tooker, Col. 8, lines 31-42).
Regarding claim 36, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Tooker embodiment 2 discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 4.
Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer of conductive polymer protruding above the substrate surface has a top view geometry of at least one selected from the group consisting of a circle, a square, a rectangle, a triangle, or a trapezoid, however, Tooker embodiment 2 further discloses wherein the layer of conductive polymer protruding above the substrate surface has a top view geometry of at least one selected from the group consisting of a circle, a square, a rectangle, a triangle, or a trapezoid (layer of conductive polymer protruding above the surface 508, has a top view geometry of a circle, Figure 5A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald to incorporate the teachings of Tooker embodiment 2 by including wherein the layer of conductive polymer protruding above the substrate surface has a top view geometry of at least one selected from the group consisting of a circle, a square, a rectangle, a triangle, or a trapezoid. The motivation to do so being to effectively organize the electrodes onto a single neural interface for effective recording and stimulation (Tooker, Col. 8, lines 31-42).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Wilks et al. (Wilks, Seth J, et al. “Poly(3,4-Ethylene Dioxythiophene) (PEDOT) as a Micro-Neural Interface Material for Electrostimulation.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 13 May 2009) herein referred to as “Wilks”.
Regarding claim 5, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 1.
However, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer of conductive polymer has a charge storage capacitance ranging from 1 to 400 mC/cm2.
Wilks discloses wherein the layer of conductive polymer has a charge storage capacitance ranging from 1 to 400 mC/cm2 (PEDOT exhibits enhanced charge storage capacity at 75.6 ± 5.4 mC/cm2 which falls within the range of 1 to 400 mC/cm2, Wilks, Page 1, Abstract, see attached).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald to incorporate the teachings of Wilks by including a layer of conductive polymer that has a charge storage capacitance ranging from 1 to 400 mC/cm2. The motivation to do so being to provide a lower amplitude voltage and a more ohmic representation of the applied current (Wilks, Page 1, Abstract, see attached).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Shippy, III et al. (US Pat. 8275455) herein referred to as “Shippy”.
Regarding claim 7, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald discloses the implantable medical electrode claim 1.
However Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer of conductive polymer comprises PEDOT.
Shippy discloses an implantable medical electrode wherein the layer of conductive polymer comprises PEDOT (a conductive polymer electrode may be formed using any suitable conductive polymer including poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), Col. 5, lines 49-54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald to incorporate the teachings of Shippy by including a layer of PEDOT on the conducting element. The motivation to do so being to form a conductive polymer electrode utilizing known materials in the art as the rate of release of a therapeutic agent can change depending on the oxidation state of the conductive polymer (Shippy, Col. 3, lines 5-24).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooker in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2021/0102304) herein referred to as “Zeng”.
Regarding claim 35, Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald further in view of Tooker embodiment 2 discloses the implantable medical electrode of claim 4.
However Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and Tooker embodiment 2 does not explicitly disclose wherein the layer of conductive polymer protrudes above the substrate surface at a distance of from 0.1 to 2.0 um.
Zeng discloses wherein the layer of conductive polymer protrudes above the substrate surface at a distance of from 0.1 to 2.0 um (the electrically conductive layers have a thickness of 0.02 to 10um, claim 6, wherein the material for the electrically conductive layer comprises conductive polymers, Abstract and the examiner interprets the protrusion of the conductive polymer above the substrate as being a thickness of 0.1 to 2 um above the surface of the substrate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tooker embodiment 1 in view of Clements and McDonald and Tooker embodiment 2 to incorporate the teachings of Zeng by including a layer of conductive that protrudes above the substrate surface at a distance from 0.1 to 2 um. The motivation to do so being to provide a consistent thickness of the entire electrically conductive layer to eliminate the influence of the edge effect and make the electric field distribution of the electrically conductive layer more uniform (Zeng, Paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lucisano et al. (US 20130197332 A1) discloses a tissue implant sensor comprising tissue anti-migration elements such as holes (Paragraph [0084]).
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 Dana Stumpfoll whose telephone number is (703)756-4669. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm (CT), M-F.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4276. 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.
/D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights