DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, (US 20130338526) in view of Osorio, (US 20120265262; hereinafter Osorio), Ghaffari et al., (US 20100298895; hereinafter Ghaffari), and Lipani, (US 20150005680).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses (Figures 1-3) a system for interacting with living tissue comprising: a device ([0103]: shown generally including an array of sensors and effectors in Figure 3) adapted to be attached to living brain tissue of a person or animal, adapted to be implanted within the body of the person or animal ([0105]: the effectors of the device may be optical probes implanted within the body), adapted to transcribe signals from the living brain tissue, and adapted to transmit the transcribed signals, wherein the device comprises an array of sensors adapted to transcribe signals from the living tissue; a processing device (analyzer) adapted to receive the transcribed signals, process the transcribed signals, and transmit the processed transcribed signals; and a computer system (database) adapted to receive the processed transcribed signals, store and further process the processed transcribed signals, and store other data related to the person or animal ([0103]-[0110]).
Howard fails to disclose that at least some sensors of the array of sensors are adapted to contact pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein at least one sensor (282) of a device is adapted to contact pyramidal layers within a brain cortical structure so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers ([0072], [0082]-[0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard to such that the device is adapted to contact pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers, as taught by Osorio, because the modification would provide specific neural signal measurement with a desired brain cortical structure as desired for treatment (Osorio; [0072]). Furthermore, since pyramidal layers II to VI are just specific layers within the general pyramidal layers of a brain cortex region taught by Osorio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device (specifically at least some sensors of the array of sensors) to receive neural signals from pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region.
Howard/Osorio fails to teach an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor, at least one carbon nanotube neural interface, a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip: and inductive coil for remote power transfer and/or a processor unit for radio transmission. However, Ghaffari teaches a system for interacting with living tissue comprising an embedded AI processor ([0262]: a processor example listed is devices having artificial intelligence), at least one carbon nanotube neural interface ([0089]-[0090], [0107]: the neural interface circuits may be formed of semiconductor materials such as carbon nanotubes), a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip ([0081], [0126]: integrated circuits such as silicon photonic chips): and a processor unit for radio transmission ([0117], [0123]-[0124]: a transducer, transmitter, or receiver capable of wireless transmission). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osario to include an embedded AI processor, at least one carbon nanotube neural interface, a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip: and inductive coil for remote power transfer and/or a processor unit for radio transmission, as taught by Ghaffari, because the modification would provide a flexible/and or stretchable device and corresponding method which are configured in such a way so as to accommodate a flexible surface and remain functional when applied to a flexible surface that is flexed or otherwise bent (Ghaffari; [0073]).
Howard/Osorio also fails to teach the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid. However, Ghaffari teaches an implant device (200), which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid ([0079], [0188]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio to include the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, as taught by Ghaffari, since applicant has not disclosed that having the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari fails to teach that the AI processor is configured to generate a prediction of a pain diagnosis. However, Lipani teaches a system for interacting with living tissue ([0002]), wherein an AI processor of the system is configured to generate a prediction of a pain diagnosis ([0165], [0170]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari to include the AI processor configured to generate a prediction of a pain diagnosis, as taught by Lipani, because, with the modification, a physician would reduce the time and effort needed for trial-and-error experimentation with stimulation modalities and parameter values. The physician may also use the diagnostic data that has been collected for a population of patients, in order to determine how subsets of patients having similar diagnostic data respond to different treatment modalities (Lipani; [0170]).
Regarding claim 10, Howard discloses (Figures 1-3) a method for interacting with living tissue comprising: attaching a device ([0103]: shown generally including an array of sensors and effectors in Figure 3) to living brain tissue of a person or animal, the device adapted to be implanted within a body of the person or animal ([0105]: the effectors of the device may be optical probes implanted within the body), the device comprising an array of sensors in contact with the living tissue; receiving by sensors neural signals from the living brain tissue; processing the received signals by the device; and transmitting the processed signals using the analyzer ([0103]-[0110]).
Howard fails to disclose that at least some sensors of the array of sensors are adapted to contact pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein at least one sensor (282) of a device is adapted to contact pyramidal layers within a brain cortical structure so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers ([0072], [0082]-[0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard to such that the device is adapted to contact pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers, as taught by Osorio, because the modification would provide specific neural signal measurement with a desired brain cortical structure as desired for treatment (Osorio; [0072]). Furthermore, since pyramidal layers II to VI are just specific layers within the general pyramidal layers of a brain cortex region taught by Osorio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device (specifically at least some sensors of the array of sensors) to receive neural signals from pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region.
Howard/Osorio fails to teach an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor, at least one carbon nanotube neural interface, a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip: and inductive coil for remote power transfer and/or a processor unit for radio transmission. However, Ghaffari teaches a system for interacting with living tissue comprising an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor ([0262]: a processor example listed is devices having artificial intelligence), at least one carbon nanotube neural interface ([0089]-[0090], [0107]: the neural interface circuits may be formed of semiconductor materials such as carbon nanotubes), a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip ([0081], [0126]: integrated circuits such as silicon photonic chips): and a processor unit for radio transmission ([0117], [0123]-[0124]: a transducer, transmitter, or receiver capable of wireless transmission). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osario to include an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor, at least one carbon nanotube neural interface, a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip: and inductive coil for remote power transfer and/or a processor unit for radio transmission, as taught by Ghaffari, because the modification would provide a flexible/and or stretchable device and corresponding method which are configured in such a way so as to accommodate a flexible surface and remain functional when applied to a flexible surface that is flexed or otherwise bent (Ghaffari; [0073]).
Howard/Osorio also fails to teach the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid. However, Ghaffari teaches an implant device (200), which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid ([0079], [0188]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio to include the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, as taught by Ghaffari, since applicant has not disclosed that having the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari fails to teach that the AI processor generating a prediction of a pain diagnosis. However, Lipani teaches a system for interacting with living tissue ([0002]), wherein an AI processor of the system generates a prediction of a pain diagnosis ([0165], [0170]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari to include the AI processor generating a prediction of a pain diagnosis, as taught by Lipani, because, with the modification, a physician would reduce the time and effort needed for trial-and-error experimentation with stimulation modalities and parameter values. The physician may also use the diagnostic data that has been collected for a population of patients, in order to determine how subsets of patients having similar diagnostic data respond to different treatment modalities (Lipani; [0170]).
Regarding claim 18, Howard discloses (Figures 1-3) a computer program product (running the analyzer) for controlling interaction with living tissue, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage (database) having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor (analyzer), to cause the processor to perform a method comprising: receiving neural signals at a device ([0103]: shown generally including an array of sensors and effectors in Figure 3) implanted in a body of a person or animal and attached to living brain tissue of the person or animal ([0105]: the effectors of the device may be optical probes implanted within the body to living brain tissue), the signals received from the living tissue using an array of sensors included in the device and in contact with the living brain tissue; processing the received signals by the device; and transmitting the processed signals ([0103]-[0110]).
Howard fails to disclose that at least some sensors of the array of sensors are adapted to contact pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers. However, Osorio teaches a system for interacting with living tissue wherein at least one sensor (282) of a device is adapted to contact pyramidal layers within a brain cortical structure so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers ([0072], [0082]-[0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard to such that the device is adapted to contact pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region so as to receive neural signals from the contacted layers, as taught by Osorio, because the modification would provide specific neural signal measurement with a desired brain cortical structure as desired for treatment (Osorio; [0072]). Furthermore, since pyramidal layers II to VI are just specific layers within the general pyramidal layers of a brain cortex region taught by Osorio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device (specifically at least some sensors of the array of sensors) to receive neural signals from pyramidal layers II to VI of a brain cortex region.
Howard/Osorio fails to teach an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor, at least one carbon nanotube neural interface, a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip: and inductive coil for remote power transfer and/or a processor unit for radio transmission. However, Ghaffari teaches a system for interacting with living tissue comprising an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor ([0262]: a processor example listed is devices having artificial intelligence), at least one carbon nanotube neural interface ([0089]-[0090], [0107]: the neural interface circuits may be formed of semiconductor materials such as carbon nanotubes), a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip ([0081], [0126]: integrated circuits such as silicon photonic chips): and a processor unit for radio transmission ([0117], [0123]-[0124]: a transducer, transmitter, or receiver capable of wireless transmission). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osario to include an embedded artificial intelligence (AI) processor, at least one carbon nanotube neural interface, a light modulation and detection silicon photonic chip: and inductive coil for remote power transfer and/or a processor unit for radio transmission, as taught by Ghaffari, because the modification would provide a flexible/and or stretchable device and corresponding method which are configured in such a way so as to accommodate a flexible surface and remain functional when applied to a flexible surface that is flexed or otherwise bent (Ghaffari; [0073]).
Howard/Osorio also fails to teach the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid. However, Ghaffari teaches an implant device (200), which may be shaped as an oblate spheroid ([0079], [0188]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio to include the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, as taught by Ghaffari, since applicant has not disclosed that having the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of the implant device shaped as an oblate spheroid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari fails to teach that the AI processor generating a prediction of a pain diagnosis. However, Lipani teaches a system for interacting with living tissue ([0002]), wherein an AI processor of the system generating a prediction of a pain diagnosis ([0165], [0170]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari to include the AI processor generating a prediction of a pain diagnosis, as taught by Lipani, because, with the modification, a physician would reduce the time and effort needed for trial-and-error experimentation with stimulation modalities and parameter values. The physician may also use the diagnostic data that has been collected for a population of patients, in order to determine how subsets of patients having similar diagnostic data respond to different treatment modalities (Lipani; [0170]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Webster et al., (US 20070038307; hereinafter Webster).
Regarding claims 2-3, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) a processor (Interface 1) adapted to receive the electrical signals and to process the electrical signals to form digital data representing the signals; and a transmitter (the sensors require transmission of the collected signals) adapted to transmit the digital data representing the signals ([0103]-[0107]), but fails to disclose that the device comprises: a plurality of carbon fibers adapted to receive electrical signals from the living tissue, wherein the carbon fibers comprise single walled carbon nanotubes. However, Webster teaches a neural implant comprising functionalized carbon nanotubes ([0007]-[0008]) and it is known in the art that carbon nanotubes may be functionalized as sensors adapted to receive electrical signals from tissue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensors disclosed by Howard with the carbon nanotube sensors taught by Webster because both sensors perform the same function of receiving electrical signals from the living tissue, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B). Furthermore, since single walled carbon nanotubes are just a type of carbon nanotube and Webster teaches using carbon nanotubes, the modified device may include single walled carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 4, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) that the device further comprises: a receiver (Interface 2) adapted to receive digital data representing the signals to be applied to the living tissue and output control signals representing the signals to be applied to the living tissue; a plurality of light sources (implanted optical probes) adapted to receive the control signals and output optical signals representing the control signals; and a plurality of optical fibers adapted to apply the optical signals to the living tissue ([0103]-[0107]: implanted optical probes would include light sources, and optical fibers to apply optical signals to tissue).
Regarding claim 5, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the system of claim 4, but Howard/Osorio fails to teach that the optical fibers are coated with single walled carbon nanotube which adapt the optical fibers to receive electrical signals from the living tissue. However, Webster teaches a neural implanted probe coated with a nanomaterial which may be functionalized carbon nanotubes ([0007]-[0008]) and it is known in the art that carbon nanotubes may be functionalized to receive electrical signals from tissue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani such that the implanted optical probes, including the optical fibers, are coated with carbon nanotubes, as taught by Webster, because the modification would provide a biocompatible material on the device to minimize scar tissue formation (Webster; [0006]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fischell et al., (US 20020099412; hereinafter Fischell).
Regarding claim 6, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the system of claim 5, but fails to teach that the device further comprises delay lines between the carbon fibers and the coated optical fibers and the processing device, wherein the delay lines are adapted to compare time between pulses of the electrical signals. However, Fischell teaches a neural implant system including delay lines between connections ([0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani to include delay lines between connections, as taught by Fischell, because the modification would enable detection of neurological events (Fischell, [0185]) to aid in treatment. Furthermore, since the primary Howard reference discloses that the different elements of the system may be preprogrammed to perform specific functions, the delay lines of the modified device may be programmed to compare time between pulses of electrical signals.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Towne et al., (US 20160030765; hereinafter Towne).
Regarding claim 7, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the system of claim 4, but fails to teach that the light sources comprise vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser devices. However, Towne teaches a therapy system wherein the light sources comprise vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser devices ([0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani to substitute the light sources disclosed by Howard with the vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser device taught by Towne because both elements perform the same function of providing light for treatment, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nurmikko et al., (US 20140094674; hereinafter Nurmikko).
Regarding claim 8, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the transmitter comprises a wireless transmitter. However, Nurmikko discloses an implantable neural device in which the transmitter is a wireless transmitter ([0060], [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani such that the transmitter comprises a wireless transmitter, as taught by Nurmikko, because the modification would eliminate the need for any physical means of transmission and reduce the bulk of the device, making it easier to use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Towne.
Regarding claim 9, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the device further comprises an inductively-recharged power source. However, Towne teaches a therapy device in which the power source is inductively-recharged ([0179]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the power source disclosed by Howard with the inductively-recharged power source taught by Towne because both elements perform the same function of providing power to the device, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Webster.
Regarding claims 11-12, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach that the sensors comprise carbon fibers, wherein the carbon fibers comprise single walled carbon nanotubes. However, Webster teaches a neural implant comprising functionalized carbon nanotubes ([0007]-[0008]) and it is known in the art that carbon nanotubes may be functionalized as sensors adapted to receive electrical signals from tissue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensors disclosed by Howard with the carbon nanotube sensors taught by Webster because both sensors perform the same function of receiving electrical signals from the living tissue, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B). Furthermore, since single walled carbon nanotubes are just a type of carbon nanotube and Webster teaches using carbon nanotubes, the modified device may include single walled carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 13, Howard further discloses receiving digital data representing signals to be applied to the living tissue and outputting control signals representing the signals to be applied to the living tissue; receiving, at a plurality of light sources (implanted optical probes), the control signals and outputting optical signals representing the control signals; and applying the optical signals to the living tissue with a plurality of optical fibers ([0103]-[0107]: implanted optical probes would include light sources, and optical fibers to apply optical signals to tissue).
Regarding claim 14, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the system of claim 13, but Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani fails to teach that the optical fibers are coated with single walled carbon nanotube which adapt the optical fibers to receive electrical signals from the living tissue. However, Webster teaches a neural implanted probe coated with a nanomaterial which may be functionalized carbon nanotubes ([0007]-[0008]) and it is known in the art that carbon nanotubes may be functionalized to receive electrical signals from tissue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani such that the implanted optical probes, including the optical fibers, are coated with carbon nanotubes, as taught by Webster, because the modification would provide a biocompatible material on the device to minimize scar tissue formation (Webster; [0006]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fischell.
Regarding claim 15, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the method of claim 14, but fails to teach comparing time between pulses of the electrical signal using delay lines coupled to the carbon fibers and the coated optical fibers. However, Fischell teaches a neural implant system including delay lines between connections ([0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani to include delay lines between connections, as taught by Fischell, because the modification would enable detection of neurological events (Fischell, [0185]) to aid in treatment. Furthermore, since the primary Howard reference discloses that the different elements of the system may be preprogrammed to perform specific functions, the delay lines of the modified device may be programmed to compare time between pulses of electrical signals.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Towne.
Regarding claim 16, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the method of claim 13, but fails to teach that the light sources comprise vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser devices. However, Towne teaches a therapy system wherein the light sources comprise vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser devices ([0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Webster/Lipani to substitute the light sources disclosed by Howard with the vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser device taught by Towne because both elements perform the same function of providing light for treatment, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nurmikko.
Regarding claim 17, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose that the processed neural signals are transmitting using a wireless transmitter. However, Nurmikko discloses an implantable neural device in which the transmitter is a wireless transmitter ([0060], [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani such that the processed neural signals are transmitting using a wireless transmitter, as taught by Nurmikko, because the modification would eliminate the need for any physical means of transmission and reduce the bulk of the device, making it easier to use.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Webster.
Regarding claims 19-20, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani teaches the method of claim 11, but fails to teach that the sensors comprise carbon fibers, wherein the carbon fibers comprise single walled carbon nanotubes. However, Webster teaches a neural implant comprising functionalized carbon nanotubes ([0007]-[0008]) and it is known in the art that carbon nanotubes may be functionalized as sensors adapted to receive electrical signals from tissue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensors disclosed by Howard with the carbon nanotube sensors taught by Webster because both sensors perform the same function of receiving electrical signals from the living tissue, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B). Furthermore, since single walled carbon nanotubes are just a type of carbon nanotube and Webster teaches using carbon nanotubes, the modified device may include single walled carbon nanotubes and the signals would be received from the living tissue using the plurality of carbon fibers coupled to the device attached to the body of the person, the plurality of carbon fibers in contact with the living tissue.
Regarding claim 21, Howard further discloses (Figures 1-3) receiving, at the device, digital data representing signals to be applied to the living tissue and outputting control signals representing the signals to be applied to the living tissue to a plurality of light sources (implanted optical probes) at the implanted device; receiving, at the plurality of light sources, the control signals and outputting optical signals representing the control signals to a plurality of optical fibers at the device; and applying the optical signals to the living tissue with a plurality of optical fibers ([0103]-[0110]: implanted optical probes would include light sources, and optical fibers to apply optical signals to tissue).
Regarding claim 22, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the system of claim 21, but Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani fails to teach that the optical fibers are coated with single walled carbon nanotube which adapt the optical fibers to receive electrical signals from the living tissue. However, Webster teaches a neural implanted probe coated with a nanomaterial which may be functionalized carbon nanotubes ([0007]-[0008]) and it is known in the art that carbon nanotubes may be functionalized to receive electrical signals from tissue. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Lipani such that the implanted optical probes, including the optical fibers, are coated with carbon nanotubes, as taught by Webster, because the modification would provide a biocompatible material on the device to minimize scar tissue formation (Webster; [0006]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Fischell.
Regarding claim 23, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the computer program product of claim 22, but fails to teach comparing time between pulses of the electrical signal using delay lines coupled to the carbon fibers and the coated optical fibers. However, Fischell teaches a neural implant system including delay lines between connections ([0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani to include delay lines between connections, as taught by Fischell, because the modification would enable detection of neurological events (Fischell, [0185]) to aid in treatment. Furthermore, since the primary Howard reference discloses that the different elements of the system may be preprogrammed to perform specific functions, the delay lines of the modified device may be programmed to compare time between pulses of electrical signals.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Towne.
Regarding claim 24, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the computer program product of claim 21, but fails to teach that the light sources comprise vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser devices. However, Towne teaches a therapy system wherein the light sources comprise vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser devices ([0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani to substitute the light sources disclosed by Howard with the vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser device taught by Towne because both elements perform the same function of providing light for treatment, and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Nurmikko.
Regarding claim 25, Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani teaches the computer program product of claim 19, but fails to disclose that the processed neural signals are transmitting using a wireless transmitter. However, Nurmikko discloses an implantable neural device in which the transmitter is a wireless transmitter ([0060], [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari/Webster/Lipani such that the processed neural signals are transmitting using a wireless transmitter, as taught by Nurmikko, because the modification would eliminate the need for any physical means of transmission and reduce the bulk of the device, making it easier to use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/16/2026, with regard to the newly amended limitations of claims 1, 10, and 18, have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is/are made in view of newly found prior art reference Lipani, which teaches a system for interacting with living tissue, wherein an AI processor of the system generates a prediction of a pain diagnosis. In combination with Howard/Osorio/Ghaffari, the modified system/method/product teaches the invention as claimed at least in amended independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights