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 .
Amendment Entered
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on August 5th, 2025. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, and 7-8. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments, filed August 5th, 2025, with respect to the claim objections have been have been considered. The claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments, however additional objections are added.
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 5th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been have been considered. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 5th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been have been considered but are not persuasive.
At pages 5-6, Applicant argues that Blaschke uses a different approach than the current application as Blaschke discloses that the transistor current IDS is a function of the gate voltage UGS for a fixed drain-source voltage UDS =200 mV, and argues that Blaschke teaches away from the use of a tunable voltage source. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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).
Furthermore, only page 6 lines 12-15 of the instant application specification specifically discloses the tunable voltage source and page 9 lines 2-4 of the instant application specification further discloses the transfer curve, drain current (Ids) vs gate-source voltage (Vgs), of all gSGFETs in each array was measured with a fixed drain-source voltage (Vds), which is similar to what is disclosed in Blaschke, page 2, 2. Results and discussion: “drain- source current IDS as a function of the gate voltage UGS with fixed drain-source voltage”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the instant application, Blaschke, and Youm are all directed to measuring and processing bio-signals/electrophysiological signals and Youm discloses the bio-signal measuring circuit 100 comprising the variable voltage source to set the voltage levels to desired levels (para. [0039]). 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 Blaschke such that the system further comprises a tunable voltage source, in view of the teachings of Youm, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the voltage source of Blaschke for the variable voltage source of Youm to set the voltage level of the voltage source to a desired level.
At page 6, Applicant argues that Blaschke is the only reference regarding graphene transistors for mapping brain activity and that there is no hint provided that would have prompted the skilled person to modify this analog domain preconditioning of Blaschke. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Blaschke, Chang, and Wolf are all directed to the signal processing of electrophysiological/neural signals and modifying the signal processing of Blaschke would be merely modifying the filtering of Blaschke with the filtering of Chang to identify the physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]) and further modifying the amplification of Blaschke with the variable gain amplifier of Wolf to provide optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (Wolf, para. [0103, 0130]).
At page 7, Applicant argues that the Office action misrepresents the teachings of Wolf since Wolf does not appear to teach or suggest separately processing a previously split signal from the graphene transistor as the channels in Wolf refer to input sensors.
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).
At page 8, Applicant argues the reliance on numerous prior art documents, including Chang, Youm, and Wolf is based on improper hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
At page 8, Applicant argues that Wolf does not teach merging a low frequency signal and a high frequency signal from a previously split signal, as claimed, but instead teaches combining a number of signals obtained from separate samples.
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).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “the thigh frequency” in claim 1 line 12 should recite “the high frequency”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke et al. (Mapping brain activity with flexible graphene micro-transistors; 2D Materials; Vol. 4, no. 2; URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2053-1583/aa5eff) (herein Blaschke) in view of Youm (US 20170238865 A1), further in view of Chang (US 20150313497 A1), and further in view of Wolf (US 20050090756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blaschke discloses a graphene transistor system (Abstract, flexible array of graphene SGFETs) comprising: a processing unit (page 7 “4.3. Data acquisition”: A custom-built setup was used for transistor characterization and neural recordings with the transistor array; National Instruments LabVIEW DAQ Card and a LabVIEW program; and “4.4. Data treatment”: Data filtering and analysis were performed with MATLAB), a graphene transistor (gSGFET) comprising graphene as channel material contacted by two terminals (page 3, figure 1a, cross section of a graphene transistor with graphene between the source and drain contact that are covered by an insulating SU8 photoresist), a voltage source connected to drain and source terminals of the graphene transistor (pages 3-4, figures 1-2, transistor current IDS as a function of the gate voltage UGS for a fixed drain-source voltage UDS = 200 mV) and an electronic circuit (page 7, 4.3 Data acquisition: “custom-built setup … operational amplifier feedback loop”) configured to acquire the signal from the graphene transistor into at least a low frequency band signal by a low-pass filter (LPF) (page 7, “4.3. Data Acquisition”: low-pass filtered at 15 kHz using an operational amplifier feedback loop), which is amplified with a gain value (page 7, “4.3. Data acquisition” an additional amplification by a factor of 100).
Blaschke does not expressly disclose a tunable voltage source.
However, Youm discloses a tunable voltage source (adjustable, variable voltage source, para. [0039]). Youm further discloses that it is easy to set the voltage levels of the voltage sources V1 and V2 to desired levels (para. [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke such that the system further comprises a tunable voltage source, in view of the teachings of Youm, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the voltage source of Blaschke for the variable voltage source of Youm to set the voltage level of the voltage source to a desired level.
Blaschke and Youm do not expressly disclose the electronic circuit configured to acquire and split the signal from the graphene transistor into at least a low frequency band signal by a low-pass filter (LPF) and a high frequency band signal by a band-pass filter (BPF).
However, Chang discloses the electronic circuit (“analog filtering”, “hardware … hardwired circuitry”, para. [0062, 0109-0110]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) acquire and split the signal (“split”, para. [0064]) into at least a low frequency band signal (slower periodic signal, para. [0126]) by a low-pass filter (LPF) (“low-pass filter”, para. [0065]) and a high frequency band signal by a band-pass filter (BPF) (“bandpass filter … frequency bands … high gamma frequencies”, para. [0064]). Chang further discloses that specific frequency bands may be selected to divide a signal into physiologically important ranges (para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm hereinabove, such that the system further comprises the electronic circuit configured to acquire and split the signal from the graphene transistor into at least a low frequency band signal by a low-pass filter (LPF) and a high frequency band signal by a band-pass filter (BPF), in view of the teachings of Chang, for the obvious advantage of splitting the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]).
Blaschke, Youm, and Chang do not expressly disclose the low frequency band signal and the high frequency band signal, which are amplified with a gain value by an amplifier, wherein a gain value applied to the low frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the thigh frequency band signal.
However, Wolf discloses the low frequency band signal (filters 428; second low-pass filter 536, para. [0089, 0102]) and the high frequency band signal (filters 428; high-pass filter 532 & first low pass filter 534, para. [0102]) (“neural signals”; “filters 428 can be adjusted to filter different frequency ranges”, filters 532, 534, 536, para. [0088-0089, 0093, 0102], fig. 4A), which are amplified with a gain value (“variable gain amplifier … gain of the signals”, para. [0089], figs. 4A & 6A) by an amplifier (variable gain amplifier 430, fig. 4A), wherein a gain value applied to the low frequency band signal is lower than a gain value applied to the thigh frequency band signal (“variable gain amplifier 430 for selectively adjusting the gain … optimize the gain on a particular channel based on the size of the neural signals … fall within a specific voltage range suitable for processing”; “gain to vary between 3,200 and 50,000”; “gain … adjusted … such that the amplitude of the largest spikes fill 2/3 of the A/D converter input range”, para. [0089-0090, 0096, 0130], fig. 4A). Wolf further discloses that the variable gain amplifier 430 can increase the dynamic range of signal conditioner module 402 and that the control signals controlling the amplification and filtering are manipulated to provide an optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (para. [0103, 0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm and Chang hereinabove, to further comprise the low frequency band signal and the high frequency band signal, which are amplified with a gain value by an amplifier, wherein a gain value applied to the low frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the thigh frequency band signal, in view of the teachings of Wolf, for the obvious advantage of increasing the dynamic range of the signal conditioner and manipulating the amplification and filtering to provide an optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (Wolf, para. [0103, 0130]).
Regarding claim 4, Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, and Wolf hereinabove, further discloses a method for measuring electrophysiological signals, using the graphene transistor system of claim 1 (see claim 1 and page 1, Abstract: the use of an array of flexible graphene SGFETs for recording spontaneous slow waves, as well as visually evoked and also pre-epileptic activity; the flexible array of graphene SGFETs allows mapping brain electrical activity), the method comprising: c. transforming the merged signal into a voltage signal according to an intrinsic gain of the graphene transistor (page, right column, “2. Results and discussion”: the transistors were characterized in vivo by measuring the drain-source current IDS as a function of the gate voltage UGS with fixed drain-source voltage; transistor curves (figure 1(c)) exhibit the expected ambipolar V-shape of graphene transistors. From the transistor curve, the transconductance gm can be extracted (figure 1(c)); Urms was calculated as the standard deviation (STD) of the filtered transistor current in the case of no brain activity and then converted to a voltage using the transconductance; page 7 left column, “4.3. Data acquisition”: the transistor current is transformed to a voltage).
Blaschke does not disclose the method further comprising: a. splitting an input signal into a low frequency and a high frequency signal with the at least one filter.
However, Chang discloses a. splitting (“split”, para. [0064]) an input signal into a low frequency (slower periodic signal, para. [0126]) and a high frequency signal (“frequency bands … high gamma frequencies”, para. [0064]) with the electronic circuit (“bandpass filter”; “low-pass filtering”, para. [0064, 0126]). Chang further discloses that specific frequency bands may be selected to divide a signal into physiologically important ranges (para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, and Wolf hereinabove, such that the method further comprises a. splitting an input signal into a low frequency and a high frequency signal with the electronic circuit, in view of the teachings of Chang, for the obvious advantage of splitting the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]).
Blaschke and Chang do not expressly disclose b. merging the low frequency signal and high frequency signal weighted by corresponding gain value, wherein a gain value applied to the lower-frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the high frequency band signal.
However, Wolf discloses b. merging the low frequency signal and high frequency signal weighted by corresponding gain (“samples are combined using gain … summing”; “combines the N samples by implementing a scaling (gain) and summing algorithm”, para. [0077, 0132], fig. 2), wherein a gain value applied to the lower-frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the high frequency band signal (“variable gain amplifier 430 for selectively adjusting the gain … optimize the gain on a particular channel based on the size of the neural signals … fall within a specific voltage range suitable for processing”; “gain to vary between 3,200 and 50,000”; “gain … adjusted … such that the amplitude of the largest spikes fill 2/3 of the A/D converter input range”, para. [0089-0090, 0096, 0130], fig. 4). Wolf further discloses that the variable gain amplifier 430 can increase the dynamic range of signal conditioner module 402 and that the control signals controlling the amplification and filtering are manipulated to provide an optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (para. [0103, 0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, and Wolf hereinabove, such that the method further comprises b. merging the low frequency signal and high frequency signal weighted by corresponding gain value, wherein a gain value applied to the lower-frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the high frequency band signal, in view of the teachings of Wolf, as such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely combining samples/signals using a scaling (gain) algorithm.
Regarding claim 6, Blaschke further discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the transforming of the voltage signal is carried out by interpolation using a graphene transistor transfer curve Ids – Vds (page, right column, “2. Results and discussion”: the transistors were characterized in vivo by measuring the drain-source current IDS as a function of the gate voltage UGS with fixed drain-source voltage; transistor curves (figure 1(c)) exhibit the expected ambipolar V-shape of graphene transistors. From the transistor curve, the transconductance gm can be extracted (figure 1(c)); Urms was calculated as the standard deviation (STD) of the filtered transistor current in the case of no brain activity and then converted to a voltage using the transconductance; page 7 left column, “4.3. Data acquisition”: the transistor current is transformed to a voltage).
Regarding claim 7, Blaschke further discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the graphene transistor transfer curve Ids - Vds is generated with a fixed drain-source voltage (Vds) (page 3, figure 1, Upper panel: transistor current IDS as a function of the gate voltage UGS for a fixed drain-source voltage UDS = 200 mV).
Regarding claim 8, Blaschke discloses a graphene transistor system (Abstract, flexible array of graphene SGFETs) comprising: a processing unit (page 7 “4.3. Data acquisition”: A custom-built setup was used for transistor characterization and neural recordings with the transistor array; National Instruments LabVIEW DAQ Card and a LabVIEW program; and “4.4. Data treatment”: Data filtering and analysis were performed with MATLAB), at least one graphene transistor (gSGFET) comprising graphene as channel material contacted by two terminals (page 3, figure 1a, cross section of a graphene transistor with graphene between the source and drain contact that are covered by an insulating SU8 photoresist), a voltage source connected to drain and source terminals of the graphene transistor (pages 3-4, figures 1-2, transistor current IDS as a function of the gate voltage UGS for a fixed drain-source voltage UDS = 200 mV) and an electronic circuit (page 7, 4.3 Data acquisition: “custom-built setup … operational amplifier feedback loop”), and an electronic circuit (page 7, 4.3 Data acquisition: “custom-built setup … operational amplifier feedback loop”) configured to filter the signal from the at least one graphene transistor into at least a low frequency band signal by a low-pass filter (LPF) (page 7, “4.3. Data Acquisition”: low-pass filtered at 15 kHz using an operational amplifier feedback loop), which is amplified with a gain value (page 7, “4.3. Data acquisition” an additional amplification by a factor of 100).
Blaschke does not expressly disclose a tunable voltage source.
However, Youm discloses a tunable voltage source (adjustable, variable voltage source, para. [0039]). Youm further discloses that it is easy to set the voltage levels of the voltage sources V1 and V2 to desired levels (para. [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke such that the system further comprises a tunable voltage source, in view of the teachings of Youm, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the voltage source of Blaschke for the variable voltage source of Youm to set the voltage level of the voltage source to a desired level.
Blaschke does not expressly disclose the electronic circuit configured to split a signal from the at least one graphene transistor into a low frequency band signal by a low-pass filter (LPF) and a high frequency band signal by a band-pass filter (BPF).
However, Chang discloses the electronic circuit (“analog filtering”, “hardware … hardwired circuitry”, para. [0062, 0109-0110]) configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) split the signal (“split”, para. [0064]) into at least a low frequency band signal (slower periodic signal, para. [0126]) by a low-pass filter (LPF) (“low-pass filter”, para. [0065]) and a high frequency band signal by a band-pass filter (BPF) (“bandpass filter … frequency bands … high gamma frequencies”, para. [0064]). Chang further discloses that specific frequency bands may be selected to divide a signal into physiologically important ranges (para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm hereinabove, such that the system further comprises the electronic circuit configured to split a signal from the at least one graphene transistor into a low frequency band signal by a low-pass filter (LPF) and a high frequency band signal by a band-pass filter (BPF), in view of the teachings of Chang, for the obvious advantage of splitting the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]).
Blaschke does not expressly disclose the low frequency band signal and the high frequency band signal, which are amplified with a gain value by an amplifier, wherein a gain value applied to the low frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the high frequency band signal, wherein the graphene transistor system is further configured to merge the low frequency signal and high frequency signal weighted by the corresponding gain value.
However, Wolf discloses the low frequency band signal (filters 428; second low-pass filter 536, para. [0089, 0102]) and the high frequency band signal (filters 428; high-pass filter 532 & first low pass filter 534, para. [0102]) (“neural signals”; “filters 428 can be adjusted to filter different frequency ranges”, filters 532, 534, 536, para. [0088-0089, 0093, 0102], fig. 4A), which are amplified with a gain value (“variable gain amplifier … gain of the signals”, para. [0089], figs. 4 & 6A) by an amplifier (variable gain amplifier 430, fig. 4A), wherein a gain value applied to the low frequency band signal is lower than a gain value applied to the high frequency band signal (“variable gain amplifier 430 for selectively adjusting the gain … optimize the gain on a particular channel based on the size of the neural signals … fall within a specific voltage range suitable for processing”; “gain to vary between 3,200 and 50,000”; “gain … adjusted … such that the amplitude of the largest spikes fill 2/3 of the A/D converter input range”, para. [0089-0090, 0096, 0130], fig. 4A), wherein the graphene transistor system is further configured to merge the low frequency signal and high frequency signal weighted by the corresponding gain value (“samples are combined using gain … summing”; “combines the N samples by implementing a scaling (gain) and summing algorithm”, para. [0077, 0132], fig. 2). Wolf further discloses that the variable gain amplifier 430 can increase the dynamic range of signal conditioner module 402 and that the control signals controlling the amplification and filtering are manipulated to provide an optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (para. [0103, 0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm and Chang hereinabove, such that the low frequency band signal and the high frequency band signal, which are amplified with a gain value by an amplifier, wherein a gain value applied to the low frequency signal band is lower than a gain value applied to the high frequency band signal, wherein the graphene transistor system is further configured to merge the low frequency signal and high frequency signal weighted by the corresponding gain value, in view of the teachings of Wolf, for the obvious advantage of increasing the dynamic range of the signal conditioner and manipulating the amplification and filtering to provide an optimized neural signal, and combining the samples/signals using a scaling (gain) algorithm.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke in view of Youm, further in view of Chang, further in view of Wolf, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Yoo (US 20150038870 A1), further in view of Ren (US 20180289279 A1), and further in view of Smith (US 4417590 A).
Regarding claim 2, Blaschke further discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 1. Blaschke does not expressly disclose wherein the electronic circuit is configured to generate: a low-pass filtered band with a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz, and a band-filtered band with a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz and 10 kHz.
However, Yoo discloses wherein the electronic circuit (integrated circuit chip, Abstract) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate: a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz (para. [0033], bandpass filters (BPF) (generally 100), each of which passes a different sub-band; one BPF passes 0-4 Hz sub-band).
However, Ren discloses wherein the electronic circuit (antenna circuit 500, para. [0072]) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate: a frequency comprised between 5 Hz and 10 kHz (para. [0093], bandpass filter 716 passes frequencies between 5 Hz-10 KHz)
However, Smith discloses wherein the electronic circuit (circuit arrangement, Abstract) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate: a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz to 70 Hz (col. 1 lines 23-25, because of the brain wave frequencies of interest; the signal processing portions of the instrument must have a band pass of from 0.16 to 70 Hz)
Upon the modification of Blaschke to split the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]), as described with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, and Wolf hereinabove, such that the electronic circuit is configured to generate: a low-pass filtered band with a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz, and a band-filtered band with a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz and 10 kHz, in view of the teachings of Yoo, Ren, and Smith, in order to pass brain wave frequencies of interest by modifying the frequency bands to incorporate the 0.16 Hz of Smith and the 10 kHz of Ren such that the first sub-band passes a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz and the second sub-band passes a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz and 10 kHz.
Regarding claim 9, Blaschke further discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 8. Blaschke does not expressly disclose wherein the electronic circuit is configured to generate: a low-pass filtered band with a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz, and a band-filtered band with a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz and 10 kHz.
However, Yoo discloses wherein the electronic circuit (integrated circuit chip, Abstract) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate: a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz (para. [0033], bandpass filters (BPF) (generally 100), each of which passes a different sub-band; one BPF passes 0-4 Hz sub-band).
However, Ren discloses wherein the electronic circuit (antenna circuit 500, para. [0072]) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate: a frequency comprised between 5 Hz and 10 kHz (para. [0093], bandpass filter 716 passes frequencies between 5 Hz-10 KHz)
However, Smith discloses wherein the electronic circuit (circuit arrangement, Abstract) is configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) generate: a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz to 70 Hz (col. 1 lines 23-25, because of the brain wave frequencies of interest; the signal processing portions of the instrument must have a band pass of from 0.16 to 70 Hz)
Upon the modification of Blaschke to split the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]), as described with respect to claim 8 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, and Wolf hereinabove, such that the electronic circuit is configured to generate: a low-pass filtered band with a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz, and a band-filtered band with a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz and 10 kHz, in view of the teachings of Yoo, Ren, and Smith, in order to pass brain wave frequencies of interest by modifying the frequency bands to incorporate the 0.16 Hz of Smith and the 10 kHz of Ren such that the first sub-band passes a frequency set between 0 Hz and 0.16 Hz and the second sub-band passes a frequency comprised between 0.16 Hz and 10 kHz.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaschke in view of Youm, further in view of Chang, further in view of Wolf, further in view of Yoo, further in view of Ren, further in view of Smith, as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 3826243 A).
Regarding claim 3, Blaschke further discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 2. Blaschke does not disclose wherein the low-pass filter (LPF) and the band-pass filter (BPF) have different gains of 104 and 106, respectively.
However, Anderson discloses wherein the low-pass filter (LPF) and the band-pass filter (BPF) have different gains of 104 and 106, respectively (figure 5, col. 4 lines 14-16 and lines 65-67 and col. 5 lines 1-10, each analyzer channel 21, 22 and 23 contains a bandpass filter centered at one particular frequency; fig. 5 shows a circuit diagram for one of the analyzer channels, 21, 22 or 23; with an operational amplifier, 66, having an open loop voltage gain in the range of 10.sup.3 to 10.sup.6). Anderson further discloses that these values are chosen to provide the desired center frequency, gain, and bandwidth (column 5 lines 1-10).
Upon the modification of Blaschke to incorporate variable gain amplifier of Wolf, as described with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith hereinabove, such that the low-pass filter (LPF) and the band-pass filter (BPF) have different gains of 104 and 106, respectively, in view of the teachings of Anderson, as such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely providing the desired center frequency, gain, and bandwidth, by adjusting the variable gain amplifier to amplify the signals with a gain in a range of 103 to 106 such that the gain values are chosen to provide the desired center frequency, gain, and bandwidth (Anderson, col. 5 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 10, Blaschke further discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 9. Blaschke does not disclose wherein the low-pass filter (LPF) and the band-pass filter (BPF) have different gains of 104 and 106, respectively.
However, Anderson discloses wherein the low-pass filter (LPF) and the band-pass filter (BPF) have different gains of 104 and 106, respectively (figure 5, col. 4 lines 14-16 and lines 65-67 and col. 5 lines 1-10, each analyzer channel 21, 22 and 23 contains a bandpass filter centered at one particular frequency; fig. 5 shows a circuit diagram for one of the analyzer channels, 21, 22 or 23; with an operational amplifier, 66, having an open loop voltage gain in the range of 10.sup.3 to 10.sup.6). Anderson further discloses that these values are chosen to provide the desired center frequency, gain, and bandwidth (col. 5 lines 1-10).
Upon the modification of Blaschke to incorporate variable gain amplifier of Wolf, as described with respect to claim 8 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blaschke, as modified by Youm, Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith hereinabove, such that the low-pass filter (LPF) and the band-pass filter (BPF) have different gains of 104 and 106, respectively, in view of the teachings of Anderson, as such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely providing the desired center frequency, gain, and bandwidth, by adjusting the variable gain amplifier to amplify the signals with a gain in a range of 103 to 106 such that the gain values are chosen to provide the desired center frequency, gain, and bandwidth (Anderson, col. 5 lines 1-10).
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 ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights