DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 19th, 2025 has been entered. The Examiner acknowledges amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, and 8.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19th, 2025 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 19th, 2025 with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages, 6-8 and 10 Applicant argues that Blaschke does not teach a tunable voltage source at the drain and source terminals of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor referred to the gate voltage, wherein the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground because Blaschke uses a different approach by fixing the drain source while tuning the gate voltage. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Only the Abstract and para. [0021] of the instant application specification publication (see US 20210345930 A1) explicitly recites the tunable voltage source. The annotated figure of the instant application is not adequately disclosed by the specification as originally filed at the time of the effective filing date and is different than what is taught by the specification as originally filed at the time of the effective filing date. Fig. 2A shows the ground external of the source and drain terminals and para. [0028, 0031, 0033] of the instant application publication (see US 20210345930 A1) discloses applying a 0.85 mV-peak sinusoidal gate signal applied through a reference electrode, a reference as gate terminal, and that a gSGFETS is a device in which graphene is used as channel material, contacted by two metal leads (source and drain terminals), and is immersed in an electrolyte solution where a reference electrode is used as gate terminal (FIG. 1A). This is different from the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor at the drain and source terminals and at ground as recited in the claims. Furthermore, the scope of the claim is ambiguous because setting the gate voltage at the source and drain terminals and setting the gate voltage to ground sets the voltage between the source and drain terminals to 0 which makes the gSGFET no longer a gate because it is always set to 0. For examination purposes, the tunable voltage source will be interpreted as being connected to the source and drain terminals and the gate voltage applied at the gate terminal/reference electrode and at ground in view of fig. 2A & para. [0028, 0031, 0033] of the instant application publication (see US 20210345930 A1) which is similar to the gate voltage taught by Blaschke. Blaschke discloses that the gate voltage was connected to the electrode ground on page 4, fig. 2 and that 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 (page 2, 2. Results and discussion). Therefore, Blaschke does disclose the limitation of a tunable voltage source connected to drain and source terminals of the graphene transistor referred to the gate voltage (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) wherein the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground (“gate voltage was connected to the electrode ground”, page 4, fig. 2; Examiner note: see the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) below).
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 regarding Youm have been fully considered but are moot because the rejection does not rely upon Youm for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
At pages 11-12, Applicant argues that Blaschke is the only reference dealing with the analog-domain preconditioning of an analog output signal of a graphene transistor and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered combining Blaschke with the other cited references. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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, Chang and Wolf are all directed to recording and conditioning electrophysiological signals of the brain. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining Blaschke with the other cited references as this would aid splitting the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]) and providing an optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (Wolf, para. [0103, 0130]).
At pages 12-13, Applicant argues that the arguments not addressed in the prior response dated 8/5/2025 are incorporated into the response, that it is appropriate to attack the reliance on Wolf, and that the Office action misrepresents the teachings of Wolf since Wolf does not teach or suggest separately processing a previously split signal. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wolf was not relied upon to disclose splitting the signal. Rather Chang was relied upon to disclose splitting the signal. Wolf was relied upon to 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. Wolf discloses filters 428 that can be adjusted to filter different frequency ranges and if a channel is enabled, the control signals controlling the amplification and filtering are manipulated to provide an optimized neural signal (Wolf, para. [0089, 0093, 0130]). The filtering and amplification of Wolf is applied to a single channel to extract information from the channel (Wolf, para. [0082, 0130]) which is similar to the teachings of Chang which filters an input signal to split it into different frequency bands (Chang, para. [0064]). Furthermore, Wolf discloses that the filters can be followed by variable gain amplifier 430 for selectively adjusting the gain of the signals and that the gain adjustment can reduce the number of bits of resolution required in the analog-to-digital converter. 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, as modified by 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, as this would aid in 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]).
At page 13, Applicant’s argues the rejection relies upon hindsight bias and fails to point to any teachings in the prior art which supports that the combination discloses was suggested by the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). Furthermore, although Blaschke is the only reference directed to a graphene transistor, the instant application, Blaschke, Chang and Wolf are all directed to recording and conditioning electrophysiological signals of the brain. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining Blaschke with the other cited references as this would aid conditioning electrophysiological signals of the brain by splitting the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]) and providing an optimized neural signal for later detection and sorting (Wolf, para. [0103, 0130]).
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 1-4 and 6-10 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.
Claim 1 lines 5-7 (claims 2-4 and 6-7 by virtue of dependency) and Claim 8 lines 5-7 (claims 9-10 by virtue of dependency) recite the limitation “a tunable voltage source at the drain and source terminals of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor referred to the gate voltage, wherein the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground”. The specification as originally filed at the time of the effective filing date does not explicitly recite the term “ground”. Furthermore, the only figure showing a circuit having a ground is in fig. 2A which shows the gate voltage and ground external to the drain and source terminals. Fig. 2A and the specification as originally filed at the time of the effective filing date does not disclose that the tunable voltage source is at the drain and source terminals of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor referred to the gate voltage and that the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground. Rather, the specification of the instant application publication (see US 20210345930 A1) does disclose, in para. [0028, 0031, 0033], applying a 0.85 mV-peak sinusoidal gate signal applied through a reference electrode, a reference as gate terminal, and that a gSGFETS is a device in which graphene is used as channel material, contacted by two metal leads (source and drain terminals), and is immersed in an electrolyte solution where a reference electrode is used as gate terminal (FIG. 1A). This is different from the limitation which recites that the tunable voltage source is at the drain and source terminals of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor referred to the gate voltage and the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground (emphasis added). For examination purposes, the tunable voltage source will be interpreted as being connected to the source and drain terminals and the gate voltage applied at the gate terminal/reference electrode and at ground in light of fig. 2A & para. [0028, 0031, 0033] of the instant application publication (see US 20210345930 A1).
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 1-4 and 6-10 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 1 lines 5-7 (claims 2-4 and 6-7 by virtue of dependency) and Claim 8 lines 5-7 (claims 9-10 by virtue of dependency) recite the limitation “a tunable voltage source at the drain and source terminals of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor referred to the gate voltage, wherein the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground”. The scope of the claim is ambiguous because setting the gate voltage at the source and drain terminals and setting the gate voltage to ground sets the voltage between the source and drain terminals to 0 which makes the SGFET no longer a gate because it is always at 0. Furthermore, the instant application publication (see US 20210345930 A1) fig. 2A shows the ground external of the source and drain terminals and para. [0028, 0031, 0033] discloses applying a 0.85 mV-peak sinusoidal gate signal applied through a reference electrode and a reference as gate terminal, which makes it unclear how the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at the drain and source terminals and at ground as recited in the claim. For examination purposes, the tunable voltage source will be interpreted as being connected to the source and drain terminals and the gate voltage applied at the gate terminal/reference electrode and at ground in view of fig. 2A & para. [0028, 0031, 0033] of the instant application publication (see US 20210345930 A1).
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, 6-7, and 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 - previously cited) (herein Blaschke) in view of Chang (US 20150313497 A1 – previously cited), and further in view of Wolf (US 20050090756 A1 – previously cited).
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 tunable voltage source connected to drain and source terminals of the graphene transistor referred to the gate voltage (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) wherein the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground (gate voltage was connected to the electrode ground; Examiner note: see the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) above), 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 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 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, as this would aid in splitting the signal into frequency bands such that the signal is divided into physiologically important ranges (Chang, para. [0064]).
Blaschke, as modified by Chang hereinabove, 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 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 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, as this would aid in 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 Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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 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, as this would aid in dividing the signal into physiologically important ranges by splitting the signal into frequency bands (Chang, para. [0064]).
Blaschke, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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 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 this would aid in combining samples/signals by incorporating and using a scaling (gain) algorithm.
Regarding claim 6, Blaschke, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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 tunable voltage source connected to drain and source terminals of the graphene transistor referred to the gate voltage (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) wherein the gate voltage of the graphene solution-gated field-effect transistor is at ground (gate voltage was connected to the electrode ground; Examiner note: see the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) above), 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 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 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, as this would aid in dividing the signal into physiologically important ranges by splitting the signal into frequency bands (Chang, para. [0064]).
Blaschke, as modified by Chang hereinabove, 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 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 as this would aid in 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 Chang and Wolf, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Yoo (US 20150038870 A1 – previously cited), further in view of Ren (US 20180289279 A1 – previously cited), and further in view of Smith (US 4417590 A – previously cited).
Regarding claim 2 Blaschke, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 1. Blaschke, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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 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, as this would aid in passing 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, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 8. Blaschke, as modified by Chang and Wolf hereinabove, 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 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, as this would aid in passing 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 Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith, as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 3826243 A – previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Blaschke, as modified by Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith hereinabove, discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 2. Blaschke, as modified by Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith hereinabove, 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 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 this would aid in 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, as modified by Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith hereinabove, discloses the graphene transistor system of claim 9 Blaschke, as modified by Chang, Wolf, Yoo, Ren, and Smith hereinabove, 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 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 this would aid in 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
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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights